Supreme Court Seeks Affidavit on IPS Postings in CAPFs, Continues Oversight of 2025 Judgment
The Supreme Court has sought a detailed explanation from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on the continued deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), despite the Court’s directions in its May 23, 2025 judgment to progressively reduce such deputation at senior levels. The latest order was passed by a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar.
The Court has directed Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan to file an affidavit explaining how the IPS deputations were processed. In particular, the Court wants to know whether the concerned CAPFs had formally requisitioned the officers and what procedure was followed before the appointments were made.
The Court has also specifically asked why IPS officers continued to be brought into CAPF posts despite its earlier direction that posts earmarked for deputation in CAPF cadres up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) should be progressively reduced, preferably within an outer limit of two years.
The issue has arisen during contempt proceedings concerning alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 judgment in Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The Court has now made clear that it will continue monitoring implementation of that judgment.
According to information placed before the Court, 46 IPS officers were deputed to five CAPFs after the 2025 judgment. The distribution reportedly includes 13 in the BSF, 11 in the CISF, nine in the CRPF, six in the ITBP and seven in the SSB.
The numbers have particular significance because the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling sought to strengthen the career prospects and cadre structure of officers belonging to the CAPFs. The Court had held that CAPFs should be treated as Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) for cadre-related purposes and directed measures that would improve opportunities for their own officers to progress to senior positions.
The Supreme Court had specifically directed that the number of posts occupied through IPS deputation up to the SAG level should be progressively reduced. The Union Government subsequently sought a review of that decision, but the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition in October 2025.
The dispute has since moved beyond administrative policy into a question of compliance with a binding judicial direction. The latest order indicates that the Court is examining not merely how many IPS officers have been posted, but the decision-making process through which those postings were authorised.
The Government has also taken legislative action in the intervening period. Parliament passed the CAPFs (General Administration) Act, 2026, which was gazetted in April. Among other provisions, the legislation provides for IPS deputation to a substantial proportion of senior CAPF posts, including 50% of Inspector General posts, at least 67% of Additional Director General posts, and all Special Director General and Director General posts.
The legislation has itself become the subject of legal challenge. Several petitions questioning the validity of the 2026 Act have been filed before the Supreme Court, adding another layer to the ongoing dispute over the balance between IPS deputation and promotion of officers from the CAPF cadres.
The controversy reflects a longstanding institutional tension. IPS officers have traditionally occupied senior leadership positions in forces such as the CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB, while CAPF cadre officers have argued that extensive deputation from another service restricts their own promotional avenues and progression to senior command positions.
For the Supreme Court, the immediate question is narrower but consequential: if the 2025 judgment required a progressive reduction of IPS deputation, on what basis were 46 further IPS officers posted to the CAPFs after that judgment?
The Home Secretary has been given two weeks to file the explanatory affidavit. The contempt proceedings are scheduled for further consideration on September 22, 2026, when the Court is expected to examine the Government’s explanation and the broader implementation of its 2025 directions.
The development is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court is retaining continuing judicial oversight rather than treating its 2025 judgment as concluded once the initial directions were issued. The Court’s latest intervention could determine how the Government’s administrative decisions and the new statutory framework are reconciled with the earlier judicial mandate on CAPF cadre management.
