CAPF Act upturns SC ruling before deployment in West Bengal

The Union government has once again gone against the ruling of the Supreme Court to ram through Parliament the CAPF Act 2026. The Act was notified on 9 April, observed as Shaurya Diwas by the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) in memory of personnel who lost their lives in the 1965 conflict with Pakistan.

The Supreme Court had directed a gradual reduction of IPS officers on deputation to CAPFs (Central Armed Police Forces). The ruling came after 14 years of litigation, during which the government’s arguments failed to move either the high court or the Supreme Court. The new Act upturns the apex court’s ruling and ensures permanence to the deputation of IPS officers at higher supervisory levels in the CAPFs.

The CAPFs include the Assam Rifles, Border Security Force (BSF), National Security Guard (NSG), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), CRPF, CISF (Central Industrial Security Force) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).    

An order (monograph) by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1984 accorded officers of CAPF the status of “Organised Group ‘A’ Service (OGAS)” along with 57 other Central government services. Under OGAS, all posts from entry level to Joint secretary (IG in case of CAPF) were to be filled by promotion.

Over the years, however, virtually permanent reservation of posts for IPS officers at various levels deprived the cadre officers of their right and opportunity to be considered for leadership posts. This led to acute stagnation, with the result that an officer joining as assistant commandant would get his first promotion to the next higher rank after 15 years of service in CRPF, almost 14 years in the case of BSF.

In 2009, the government sought to address such stagnation and decided to grant ‘Non-Functional Financial Upgradation’ (NFFU) to the personnel of several OGAS services, but not to the CAPFs. Faced with the double jeopardy of stagnation and financial loss, CAPF officers approached courts after government declined to grant them parity.

The ruling by the Supreme Court in 2025 and subsequent dismissal of the review petition of the government was the culmination of a 14-year legal battle in which Delhi High Court in 2015 and SC in 2019 ruled in favour of CAPF officers, yet the government either kept appealing against orders or implemented them only partially.

The new Act overturning the SC’s order neither addresses the core issue of stagnation amongst CAPF officers nor mitigates the double jeopardy of financial loss due to acute stagnation at all levels.

The courts had rejected the arguments by the government and the IPS Association that IPS being an All-India Service (AIS), its officers were essential to be deputed to the CAPFs and that this advanced the cause of Centre-state relations.

Courts also rejected argument that IPS personnel in CAPFs would ensure better coordination or intelligence because the role of CAPFs was to assist the police in internal security. Typically, the Act was enacted without any scientific study or consultations with stakeholders.

Professional forces require stable, homegrown leaders well versed in the professional requirements of the organisation, not perpetual dependence on external command structures. Reform should strengthen institutional ownership within CAPFs while ensuring administrative balance. The Act fails to meet this important criterion. Importantly, professional forces across the world tend to evolve towards leadership that emerges from within their own operational ecosystem. That is not exceptionalism, it is institutional maturity.

The new Act is bound to result in yet another cycle of litigation even as it demoralises the officers who had joined the CAPFs directly and result in lack of cohesion and coordination. The question that needs to be asked is, why the government is so determined to push IPS officers on deputation for short periods. Does it enhance performance or productivity? Is it really administrative reform of some kind or is there more to it than meets the eye? 

****

The Act has undone what the Supreme Court did — direct the government to implement its own policy of granting all benefits of OGAS to the CAPF cadres — a status granted to all other 57 services of the government of India. The statement of objectives justifying the retention of IPS in CAPF on grounds such as the IPS being an AIS or IPS deputation being necessary for reasons of coordination with states and for coordination of intelligence were found to be superfluous arguments by courts at all stages.

Why are IPS officers so keen on deputation to CAPFs? These are large forces with large, independent sources. Senior IPS officers in states, it is said, often feel powerless and seek greener pastures. It also provides an escape from potentially inconvenient or hostile political dispensations in states. A third attraction is that they can hope for postings in either major metro cities or in their home states.

In several CAPFs, postings reserved for IPS officers in remote areas typically remain vacant. Some of them may even be escaping from poor performance or questionable conduct, making them susceptible to pressure. It possibly suits the government to have such officers lead CAPFs on election duty, for example, in West Bengal. 

Officers belonging to the Indian Police Service are experts in crime detection, investigation and law and order duties — roles structurally and operationally distinct from the task of guarding the border and counter-insurgency. The decision to place them for short periods at higher positions have arguably led to underwhelming operational orders and stagnation of both personnel at all levels and infrastructure development.

A large number of court cases and high number of voluntary retirements have been the result. The removal of the ranks of lance naik and naiks in CAPFs has resulted in a constable taking as long as 22 years for his first promotion.

Another example is the addition of a seventh company in a battalion without proportionate enhancement of support staff, resulting in increase of operational area and administrative burden on a unit commandant.

The new Act raises constitutional concerns and is a fit case for judicial scrutiny. Parliament can of course legislate within constitutional limitations, but is Parliament free to bypass binding judicial pronouncements without first curing underlying legal defects? As in the case of the appointment of election commissioners, this Act restructures administrative control in a manner that effectively neutralises the impact of a Supreme Court order, amounting to questionable legislative overreach.

The invocation of “national security” as a justification for sweeping changes does not make the law immune from judicial review. Apart from this, the Act appears to defy judicial authority, upsetting the balance between different institutions and principles of separation of powers, judicial review, and rule of law. It prioritises administrative convenience over constitutional discipline and seeks to achieve indirectly through legislation what has been argued in courts and turned down as violative of constitutional principles.

It also does a disservice to the 13,000-strong CAPF cadre which has the experience and training to take over the reins of these specialised forces. Section 3 of the Act centralises authority and disproportionately favours IPS officers on deputation without any rational link to the stated objectives of efficiency and national security. Hopes of CAPF cadres about resolution of their grievances have been put paid to by the enactment of this Act as they face an uncertain future and another long legal battle.

Views are personal

The writer retired as additional director-general of the Border Security Force, and is a security analyst associated with several thinktanks