New Delhi: The Centre has defended the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, in the Supreme Court, maintaining that it neither seeks to override the apex court’s May 23, 2025 judgment nor declares the ruling erroneous or void, while maintaining that the deputation of IPS officers to senior positions in the CAPFs is necessary for the country’s internal security architecture.
In a counter affidavit filed on Wednesday, a day before a special bench is scheduled to hear petitions by serving CAPF officers challenging the law, the government said the Act did not re-enact any provision struck down by the court. It also said the law came into force on October 8 through a notification and that the cadre review exercise directed by the court was underway. “It is submitted that the 2026 Act came into force on October 8 by virtue of notification,” the joint affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the CRPF stated.
The petition was filed by more than 800 serving CAPF officers, including Shaurya Chakra, Kirti Chakra and other gallantry award winners, who have challenged the law, arguing that it seeks to circumvent the apex court’s ruling. The bill was passed by Parliament in April despite opposition leaders raising concerns that it would undermine the morale of cadre officers.
A home ministry officer, who filed the counter affidavit, denied that this was done to nullify the judgment or challenge the court’s authority.
The Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment had directed the Centre to progressively reduce IPS deputation to the five CAPFs — the CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB — up to the inspector general (IG) rank. The ruling followed an almost 16-year legal battle by CAPF cadre officers over promotional stagnation and the deputation of IPS officers to senior posts.
The cadre officers have argued that large-scale deputation has restricted their promotional opportunities and prevented them from reaching leadership positions. They have also contended that while the court directed the government to progressively reduce IPS deputation, the new law prescribes fixed quotas for deputation at senior ranks.
The government, however, said the recruitment rules of each CAPF had, “from their inception”, provided for the appointment of IPS officers on deputation. It rejected the argument that IPS officers lacked the competence to hold senior command positions, saying they served in internal security, counter-insurgency and left-wing extremism theatres, border districts and intelligence organisations.
Denying that IPS officers occupied most senior posts, the government said 47 of the 607 sanctioned deputy inspector general (DIG) posts were held by IPS officers, while 64 of the 140 sanctioned IG posts were allocated to them.
The affidavit said IPS officers brought knowledge of state administrations, police forces and regional security situations to CAPF leadership. They also acted as a key link between the Centre and state governments in policing, law and order, counter-insurgency, militancy, terrorism and border protection.
The government further said the deputation quotas were “neither without any study nor without determining principle”, as alleged by the petitioners.
On cadre review, the Centre said the exercise was underway within the framework of the 2026 Act. It also provided the dates on which proposals for cadre reviews of all five CAPFs were sent to the Department of Personnel and Training.
Retired CAPF officers and their families have announced a peaceful protest against the Act at Jantar Mantar in November.
EOM