A Question of Control?

Hijacking of the debate around the necessity of the recently notified CAPF (Administrative Reforms) Act, 2026—from important constitutional issues arising out of the overturning of a well-considered judicial pronouncement by the Supreme Court, and national security implications, to the presumed superiority of coordination abilities, training, and strategic vision of IPS officers—is unfortunate and needs to be put in proper perspective. This narrative has mainly come from retired and serving IPS officers, besides politicians belonging to the party in power. The contempt that these IPS officers display towards the CAPF cadres is reminiscent of what the then Prime Minister of Britain, Churchill, is said to have displayed towards Indian leaders at the time of independence.

The myth of IPS superiority gets busted by the fact that 119 out of 122 Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers of the 2016 batch failed one or more academic or physical tests at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA). While they graduated, they were required to retake exams, with three attempts allowed before potential discharge. There may be similar examples in other batches, too, that we do not know of.

While the IPS officers may be good insofar as their policing and investigative skills are concerned—even that is questionable, keeping in view the bad state of law and order, rampant corruption, and poor standards of investigation in most states of the country—they certainly are out of depth in managing the operational, logistical, and personnel management issues of the specialised Central Armed Police Forces, commonly referred to as CAPFs.

The inability of the IPS leaders at the helm of affairs of the CAPFs to address the festering issues of these forces is apparent from the fact that the units and sub-units of these forces continue to face an acute deficiency of infrastructure at the unit and sub-unit levels, leading to a high workload on jawans, subordinates, and officers, and therefore work-life imbalance. This is manifest in the large number of voluntary retirements in these forces. The abysmal failure to identify and induct technology suitable for the specialised operational domain of these forces emanates from their not being familiar with the ground-level operational environment. The failure of HR policies is manifest in acute stagnation not only amongst officers’ cadres but also amongst subordinate officers and other ranks of the five forces. The inability to ensure proper work-life balance and adequate facilities at BOPs/COBs is a major cause of the large number of voluntary retirements.

The Supreme Court order of May 25 and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition by the Government aimed to “progressively reduce” IPS deputation in CAPFs up to the level of Joint Secretary, i.e., Inspector General, and allow the CAPF cadre officers to occupy all positions up to that level. This would have enhanced the promotional avenues for cadre officers to a limited extent. However, the major impact of the implementation of the Supreme Court order would have been to eliminate the financial deprivation that the cadre officers face by according them the benefits of Non-Functional Upgradation and thereby removing the double jeopardy—of stagnation as well as financial loss to the cadre officers. The Supreme Court order would have gone a long way in utilising the wide experience of the cadre officers in their respective professional domains at higher supervisory and policymaking levels, thus enabling these forces to align their policies in conformity with their operational necessities.

The CAPF (General Administration) Act, 2026, overturns the Supreme Court order without specifying coherent grounds. The Bill is in contravention of the law settled by the Supreme Court in several of its judgments. As late as November 8, 2025, the Supreme Court has asserted that the Legislature cannot override court judgments, but can fix legal defects through amendments.

The Act is certain to be challenged on this constitutional ground because it does not cure any legal lacunae. The challenge also arises on the grounds of violation of the fundamental rights of the cadre officers available to them under Articles 14 and 16.

The cadre officers of CPMF had achieved a hard-fought legal victory and were hopeful of its implementation, which would have brought closure to their struggles. However, that was not to be. They will now have to wait a few more years to finally get justice.

Views expressed are personal.