The Supreme Court will on Thursday hear a petition challenging the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, arguing that the law was enacted to nullify and negate the Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 judgment that ordered the government to progressively reduce the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to the five Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) CAPFs.
The faces behind the petition
The petition has been filed by over 800 serving officers, many of them recipients of Shaurya Chakra, Kirti Chakra and other gallantry awards. It is uncommon for serving officers to file a petition against the government over a law, but there is no bar on them.
The lead petitioner, Bibhor Kumar Singh, an assistant commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), received the Shaurya Chakra for his role in a February 2022 operation against Maoists in the Chakarbanda forest area spanning Bihar’s Gaya and Aurangabad districts. Singh was leading a CRPF unit when his team came under fire, followed by an improvised explosive device (IED) blast. He lost both his lower limbs and the middle and index fingers of his left hand.
Another petitioner, Harshpal Singh, was awarded the Kirti Chakra, India’s second-highest peacetime gallantry award, for eliminating three terrorists in Jammu in 2025. He has also received five gallantry awards during his career. All the petitioners are decorated serving officers who have demonstrated bravery in different operations.
Why they petitioned the Supreme Court
According to the petitioners, the new law raises serious constitutional questions concerning their service conditions, cadre management and promotional avenues, and the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, adversely affects their career progression.
The legislation was passed by the Rajya Sabha on April 1 and the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2026, despite the Opposition raising concerns that it would undermine the morale of cadre officers of the five CAPFs: Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). The government notified it on October 8, two days before the top court was to hold a hearing.
The officers contend that the legislation was designed to circumvent directions of the top court passed in May 2025, which went in their favour after a legal battle that continued for nearly two decades. “The CAPF Act is nothing but an attempt to revise, override the judgment dated 23.05.2025 of this Hon’ble Court, thus, it is liable to be struck down,” the petition said.
Former CRPF Inspector General (IG) Vikram Singh, a cadre officer, said the officers fought an 18-year-longlegal battle with the government and won at every stage and in every court of law. Singh recalled that after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict, the government initially filed a review petition, which the court dismissed. The logical process would have been to follow the Supreme Court’s directions but this did not happen. “Instead, the government came up with this Act which is circumventing the apex court’s directions. This is why our brave officers were forced to approach the Supreme Court.”
Large-scale deputation of IPS officers to senior positions
The petitioners have argued that the primary responsibility of the CAPFs is to ensure the security of the state, including border guarding, counter-insurgency and other national security functions. They say assisting in maintaining public order and law and order is an ancillary responsibility. But state police forces and IPS officers, by contrast, predominantly operate in the domains of law and order and public order. The petitioners contend that mandating large-scale deputation of IPS officers to senior CAPF positions fails to recognise this distinction between the two services.
They also argue that lateral entry into higher ranks prevents cadre officers from getting timely promotions, leading to stagnation that can adversely affect morale.
No cadre review for cadre officers
The petitioners have sought a cadre review for all five CAPFs, saying the exercise was pending, despite the Supreme Court’s judgment. They have asked that the review be completed within six months. They have also sought a review of the existing recruitment rules for all five forces, ensuring their representatives’ views are taken into account.
Different training and operational requirements
The officers argue that CAPFs perform national and internal security duties requiring specialised training and experience. Their personnel undergo field training and related courses relevant to commanding armed forces and are required to complete specific courses for career progression. The officers say that cadre officers serve with the force all their lives in different ranks and should be given a chance to lead the force instead of bringing IPS officers on deputation. “The training that an IPS officer undergoes while joining the police services or for promotions do not have courses which are relevant for commanding a force that is involved in national security,” the petitioners said. They contend that IPS officers’ appointment to leadership positions creates a glass ceiling for cadre officers, many of whom serve in the forces for decades as Group A officers.
Deputation quotas lack a sound basis
The petitioners said the SC verdict directed a progressive reduction in IPS deputation. However, the 2026 Act prescribes fixed percentages for deputation at different levels: 50% at the inspector general (IG) level, a minimum of 67% at the additional director general (ADG) level, and 100% at the special director general (SDG) and director general (DG) levels. The DG, a three-star IPS officer, heads a force.
This means a cadre officer can only hope to reach the ADG level, the number 3 spot, despite spending their entire life in the force.
The petitioners contend that these numerical requirements are not supported by any study or justified by operational needs but were designed to systematically exclude cadre officers from senior positions, disrupt the promotional hierarchy and violate the constitutional guarantee of equality. The legislation, the petition further argues, disregards the operational realities and specialised expertise of CAPF officers in border management, national security and internal security, undermining cadre morale and institutional integrity and adversely affecting national security.
The government counters
In a 77-page counter affidavit filed on Wednesday, the Union home ministry defended the legislation, arguing that it doesn’t override the Supreme Court’s verdict. The government maintained that deputation of IPS officers to senior CAPF positions is necessary for the country’s internal security architecture.
Legislative competence
The government also emphasised that the petition did not question Parliament’s legislative competence to enact the 2026 law. It said a law enacted by Parliament can be struck down only on two grounds: lack of legislative competence, or violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or another constitutional provision.
The government said the legislation was a permissible exercise of Parliament’s legislative powers that alters the legal foundation on which the court’s directions were based. The government acknowledged that the legislature cannot directly overrule or set aside a judicial decision merely by declaring it so. However, it argued that Parliament can render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law within its legislative field that fundamentally alters the conditions on which the decision was based. Such legislation, it said, does not amount to an encroachment on judicial power. The affidavit also said the petitioners’ case rested on an “erroneous premise” that the Supreme Court had held the deputation of IPS officers to CAPFs to be illegal or unconstitutional. “No such finding was recorded,” it said.
Historical precedent and inter-agency coordination
The government said the recruitment rules framed under the respective laws passed by Parliament governing the CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB had provided for the “appointment of IPS officers on deputation since their inception.” It reiterated the position set out in the Bill’s statement of objects and reasons, arguing that IPS officers were an integral part of the CAPFs, which perform national security and counter-insurgency functions in close coordination with state authorities.
The government’s counter-affidavit stated that IPS officers are essential for effective operational functioning and coordination between the Centre and states, making it necessary to maintain the existing deputation system.
IPS officers don’t lack relevant experience
The Centre rejected the contention that IPS officers lack the competence to hold senior command positions in the CAPFs, reasoning that IPS officers served in internal security, counter-insurgency and left-wing extremism theatres, border districts and intelligence organisations. The government also disputed the claim that IPS officers occupied most senior posts. At the deputy inspector general (DIG) level, it said, only 47 of the 607 sanctioned posts are held by IPS officers. At the IG level, IPS officers hold 64 of the 140 sanctioned posts. It further argued that IPS officers served at district, state and central levels, bringing to CAPF leadership an understanding of state administrations, police forces and regional internal security situations.
Operational requirements
The government rejected the petitioners’ contention that it imposed the deputation quotas without adequate study or consideration of operational requirements. The affidavit said IPS officers are a key coordinating service between the Centre and state governments, handling day-to-day policing and law-and-order duties while helping formulate strategies to combat insurgency, militancy and terrorism and protect borders.
Cadre review underway
On the cadre review, the government reiterated that the SC’s directions on the pending review are underway. “The cadre review exercise is in fact underway and will be governed within the framework of the 2026 Act,” the government said in the affidavit. It also shared the dates on which the proposals for cadre review for all five CAPFs were sent to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
The Supreme Court’s hearing on Thursday will bring these competing arguments into focus, as the court examines the challenge to the 2026 Act and the questions it raises about cadre officers’ career progression and the deputation of IPS officers to senior CAPF positions.