New Delhi, Oct 14 (PTI) The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that the CAPFs (General Administration) Act 2026 does not overrule the apex court’s 2025 judgement but is a “permissible exercise” that alters the basis on which the directions in the judgement were premised.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the CRPF stated this in a joint affidavit filed on Wednesday seeking dismissal of a writ petition filed by CAPF cadre officers.
The writ petition was filed by a batch of CAPF officers, led by CRPF’s Assistant Commandant and Shaurya Chakra awardee Bibhor Kumar Singh, and others contending that the 2026 law was brought to “overrule” the May 2025 judgment of the SC and that it was arbitrary and discriminatory as it does not address the issue of the stagnation in promotion of cadre officers due to IPS officers coming on deputation to these forces.
Under the Act, 50 per cent of the posts in the rank of inspector general are to be filled through deputation from the IPS, while a minimum of 67 per cent of posts at the additional director general level are to be filled through deputation. The posts in the ranks of special director general and director general are to be filled through deputation only.
The apex court’s 2025 order directed the Centre to progressively reduce Indian Police Service (IPS) postings to the five CAPFs- CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB- up to the Inspector General (IG) rank.
The CAPF Act was passed by the Parliament in April and it has been made operational on October 8 by the Union government.
“It is submitted that the 2026 Act is not an attempt to sit in appeal over the judgement dated 23.05.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court… On the contrary, it is submitted that the 2026 Act is a permissible exercise which alters the legal foundation upon which the directions contained in the said judgement were premised,” the affidavit said.
It added that “legality” of IPS officers’ deputation in the CAPFs was never a subject matter of adjudication.
The affidavit stated that the constitution and reconstitution of cadres, the creation and abolition of posts, the prescription of the sources and modes of recruitment, and the proportion in which posts are to be filled from each source, are matters of policy which lie within the domain of the employer (Union government).
“It is further settled that no employee has a right to insist that the cadre be structured in a particular manner, or that the conditions of service, including the avenues of promotion remain unaltered,” it stated.
It added that the SC “does not sit in judgement” over the wisdom of a policy unless it is “palpably arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the Constitution or a Statute…”
The Centre argued that IPS officers bring to the leadership of the CAPFs a familiarity with the state administrations, the state police forces and the internal security situation of each region, to the aid of the respective CAPFs which perform distinct and specialised functions.
It also stated that the CAPF cadre officers and those from the All India Services (IPS) coming to these forces on deputation were not “similarly situated” and are recruited through different exams and statutes.
The affidavit mentioned that out of the total 607 sanctioned posts of Deputy Inspectors General (DIGs) in the five CAPFs, 469 were meant for the cadre and the rest 120 for the IPS officers. PTI NES RT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.