Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea Challenging CAPF Act Allowing IPS Deputation Contrary To SC Judgment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government on writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, contending that it amounts to an impermissible legislative override of the Court's earlier judgment barring the deputation of IPS officers in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was considering a petition filed by 34 officers. The bench also considered another petition filed by 890 CAPF officers.

The plea seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as well as the doctrine of separation of powers.

 In Sanjay Prakash v. Union of India, decided on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court (bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) had directed that posts earmarked for deputation in the cadres of the CAPFs up to the level of SAG(Senior Administrative Grade) should be progressively reduced within a period of time, such as two years. The Court also held the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) must be treated as part of Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) not only for the purpose of granting Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) but also for all cadre-related matters, including cadre review.

The effect of the judgment was that the deputation of IPS officers in senior CAPF posts must be reduced.

The CAPF Act, which was enacted by Parliament after the judgment, gives it an overriding effect over any judgment of the Court. Section 3 says that "notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court", the Central Government may, by notification, make rules to provide for the method, manner and mode of recruitment, including promotion and deputation and the conditions of service of officers in the Central Armed Police Force. The provision also specifies the manner in which the posts are to be filled up by IPS deputation. It states that in all CAPFs, 50% of the total posts in the rank of Inspector General, at least 67% posts in the rank of Additional Director General, and all posts in the rank of Special Director General and Director General must be filled by IPS officers on deputation.

The petitioners argue that the CAPF Act has negated the judgments in Sanjay Prakash and and Harananda v. Union of India ((2019) 14 SCC 126), without removing the legal basis of those decisions.

The plea argues that while the legislature is competent to amend the law retrospectively, it cannot simply nullify judicial pronouncements without curing the defects or altering the underlying legal basis on which the judgments were rendered.

It contends that the 2026 Act effectively seeks to negate the effect of the Supreme Court's decisions through legislative fiat, thereby violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers. 

The petitioners have argued that the classification and fixed deputation quotas are said to be arbitrary, lacking intelligible differentia or rational nexus, and to structurally exclude trained cadre officers from promotional avenues. The Act is characterised as a colourable legislative exercise that seeks to override a binding judicial pronouncement without removing its underlying basis, relying on precedents including Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2022), and Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala(1996), among others cited in the petition.

They also draw on the distinction between "law and order," "public order," and "security of the State" laid down in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar(1966) to argue that CAPFs, being primarily concerned with national security and border-guarding functions, cannot be equated with State police forces for purposes of command structure and deputation policy.

Apart from seeking to declare the 2026 Act as unconstitutional, the petitioners also seek directions ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment dated 23.05.2025 on cadre review, amendment of recruitment rules, and progressive reduction of deputation in the CAPFs.

Case : SANJAY PRAKASH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.| Diary No. 29938-2026 &. BIBHOR KUMAR SINGH (SHAURYA CHAKRA) AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 873/2026

Petitioners represented by Snr. Adv. Shyam Divan, Snr. Adv. Arvind Datar, Snr. Adv. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Adv. Abhishek Puri, Adv. Surbhi Gupta and Adv. Sahil Grewal. The Petitions on behalf of various CAPF Forces have been filed through AOR Adv. P.N. Puri.