The 18,000 officers of the Central Armed Police Forces lead nearly one million jawans. Among them, the Border Security Force is deployed along India’s sensitive borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh; the Indo-Tibetan Border Police guards the border with Tibet (China); and the Sashastra Seema Bal is deployed along the borders with Nepal and Bhutan. The Central Reserve Police Force is engaged in critical counter-insurgency operations, while the Central Industrial Security Force secures airports, Parliament, and other critical central government establishments.
All of them feel aggrieved by the passage of the CAPF Act, 2026, which nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling on their career progression in Sanjay Prakash vs Union of India (2025). However, this is not the first time that a ruling party has used the juggernaut of its overwhelming parliamentary majority to override a judicial mandate. In fact, India has a long history of legislatures enacting laws to overturn court judgments.
Across parties, states, decades, and a wide range of issues, the ruling dispensation has often pressed amendments and legislation to nullify judicial directions. The practice began with the First Constitutional Amendment, introduced by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru even before India’s first general election. In Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India, Tripurdaman Singh describes the intense debates in Parliament during May and June 1951, when Nehru introduced the amendment to add “reasonable restrictions” to Article 19(2), thereby permitting the State to limit freedom of speech in the interests of public order, friendly relations with foreign states, and incitement to an offence. The amendment effectively diluted the strict interpretation that courts had given to permissible restrictions on free speech.
Similarly, Article 31A was introduced to specifically protect laws relating to zamindari abolition and the acquisition of estates by removing them from the ambit of challenges based on Articles 14, 19 and 31. Furthermore, Article 31B created the Ninth Schedule—a “black box” for laws by exempting them from the purview of judicial scrutiny.
Golak Nath to Kesavananda Bharati
In 1967, the Supreme Court asserted its authority in the Golak Nath case and ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. But four years later, the 24th Constitutional Amendment of 1971 explicitly restored Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III.
In 1973, Parliament enacted the 32nd Constitutional Amendment, inserting Articles 371D and 371E into the Constitution. This was done to validate the Andhra Pradesh legislation providing preference in education and employment for “Mulkis” (residents of the Telangana region under the Nizam). Fortunately, though, it did provide a sunset clause for the Mulki reservations.
The same year, in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court established the Basic Structure doctrine. But then came the infamous 42nd Constitutional Amendment during the Emergency—an attempt by the government to bypass the limitations imposed by the Basic Structure doctrine.
Shah Bano, Vodafone, Delhi services
Perhaps the most controversial legislation to overturn a judicial verdict was the Shah Bano case.
The Supreme Court had ruled that a divorced Muslim woman unable to maintain herself was entitled to maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—a secular law meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution—regardless of her religion or personal law. The judgment triggered widespread protests from sections of the Muslim community, who viewed it as an intrusion into Muslim personal law.
Facing significant political pressure, the Rajiv Gandhi government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively limiting a husband’s maintenance obligation to the iddat period and shifting responsibility thereafter to her relatives or, where necessary, the Wakf Board.
In 2012, the UPA government amended the Income Tax Act, 1961, with retrospective effect to nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vodafone International Holdings vs Union of India. The Court had held that Vodafone’s offshore transaction was not taxable in India. The government’s retrospective amendment changed the definition of “indirect transfer”, thereby overriding the basis of the Court’s decision.
Again, in May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the Delhi government had legislative and administrative control over “services” (the bureaucracy), excluding public order, police, and land. Soon afterwards, the Narendra Modi government promulgated an ordinance—later enacted as an Act—that effectively reversed the ruling by vesting control over services in the Lieutenant Governor.
The brazen passage of CAPF Act, 2026
As such, the CAPF Act, 2026, is not an exception, though its passage was more brazen than others. It was passed by a voice vote in the Rajya Sabha on 1 April, and in the Lok Sabha the following day. Union Home Minister Amit Shah was absent on both occasions. In the Lok Sabha, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s request to defer discussion on the Bill because of the Assembly elections in West Bengal, Assam, and Tamil Nadu was summarily rejected.
The eight-section, two-page Act is also armed with a “non obstante” clause, enabling it to override not only the present judgment but potentially any future judicial ruling on the subject.
In 2025, Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that, since the CAPFs constitute an Organised Group ‘A’ Service (OGAS), their officers were entitled to a uniform promotion structure and a systematic cadre management policy. This mandated the extension of benefits such as a progressive increase in the promotion quota for CAPF officers who, like their colleagues in the Civil Services Examination, had been recruited through the all-India examination conducted by the UPSC.
The background
Although each CAPF—CRPF, BSF, SSB, CISF, and ITBP—has its own unique history, all have traditionally been helmed by officers of the Indian Police Service (IPS).
This worked well when senior officers came on deputation from state police services or through Emergency Commission, and when Assistant Commandants were Class II non-gazetted officers. However, in 1974, Assistant Commandants were upgraded to Class I gazetted status, and recruitment became increasingly competitive, involving physical fitness, written examination (including psychometric tests), and interviews. Since 2011, recruitment has been conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
It may be mentioned that CISF officers were recruited through the Civil Services Examination between 1992 and 2003, while officers of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) are still recruited through the same examination.
CAPF officers have pointed out that members of the IPS, for whom the top positions—50 per cent of all Inspector General posts, two-thirds of all Additional Director General posts, and all Director General posts—have been reserved, are not known to have performed their own tasks—law and order, internal security within the states, and crime investigation—with great distinction, so much so that the CAPFs have to be called in for anything of critical importance, be it the conduct of the NEET examination, elections, or VVIP security and protocol duties.
They also point out that a typical CAPF officer is at least six years younger than their IPS colleague because the upper age limit for CAPF recruitment is 24, compared with 32 years for the IPS. Why then should officers who spend decades in these forces not have an equal opportunity to occupy leadership roles?
They describe themselves as the new Eklavyas—their aim is better, but their “thumbs” have been chopped off at the altar of an entrenched hierarchy that claims superiority on the basis of birth rather than performance.
Sanjeev Chopra is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Contemporary Studies, Prime Ministers Museum and Library (PMML), New Delhi, where his Fellowship topic is Borders, Boundaries and Bluewaters of Bharat. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)