The Supreme Court sought the Centre’s explanation for deputing 46 IPS officers to CAPFs despite its 2025 judgment, with Justice Bhuyan saying paramilitary cadres are “completely stifled” by a “strong lobby.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought a detailed explanation from the Union government over the deputation of 46 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to five Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) after its May 2025 judgment a judgment that had directed the progressive reduction of such deputation with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan orally remarking that officers of the CAPF cadres who had served for decades and made “supreme sacrifices” were being “completely stifled,” and that there was “a strong lobby” at work [Mahendra Singh Deo and Others v. Govind Mohan and Others].
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the order on September 2, hearing a batch of contempt petitions against the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, over alleged non-compliance with the Court’s judgment of May 23, 2025 in Sanjay Prakash and Others v. Union of India. The remarks recorded below were made orally during the hearing; the Court’s operative directions are contained in its signed order.
‘There is a strong lobby… the cadres are completely stifled’
The sharpest exchange came as Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for the Union, sought to defend the government’s position and to submit that the matter was not a CAPF-versus-IPS issue. Justice Bhuyan was unpersuaded, and questioned whether the CAPF cadres lacked officers competent to hold senior positions:
“Do you think that there are no competent officers in the CAPF to hold managerial positions? It is wrong… totally wrong… There are officers who have served for 25-30 years in CRPF, ITBP and BSF, and yet they have not been given… why are you treating them like this? They are also defending our borders. They are also fighting for us… Supreme sacrifices they have made…”
When the ASG maintained that the government had not created a CAPF-versus-IPS divide, Justice Bhuyan responded pointedly, prefacing his remark with an apology for the word he was about to use:
“You have created it this way. I am sorry to use this word, but there is a strong lobby there and they are virtually… We do not want to express any view on that, but officers of cadres such as the CRPF, ITBP and BSF are completely stifled.”
The observations are striking for a service matter, and they go to the heart of a long-running institutional grievance that the senior leadership of the paramilitary forces, whose own officers spend their careers in these forces, has been dominated by IPS officers brought in on deputation, leaving the cadre officers with limited prospects of rising to the top.
46 deputations after the judgment
The immediate trigger was the compliance affidavit the Court had directed the Home Ministry and the Department of Personnel and Training to file. According to the affidavit of the MHA Secretary, 46 IPS officers up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level had been brought on deputation to the CAPFs after the May 23, 2025 judgment. The signed order extracts the cadre-wise breakdown: 13 officers to the Border Security Force (eight DIGs and five IGs), 11 to the Central Industrial Security Force (nine DIGs and two IGs), nine to the Central Reserve Police Force (four DIGs and five IGs), six to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (three DIGs and three IGs), and seven to the Sashastra Seema Bal (two SPs, two DIGs and three IGs) 46 in all, comprising two SPs, 26 DIGs and 18 IGs.
That these deputations were made after the judgment which had directed their progressive reduction is what drew the Court’s scrutiny. In its order, the Bench directed the MHA Secretary to explain the statement specifically, what procedure was followed before bringing the officers on deputation, whether any requisition was made by the borrowing department, and the reasons for the deputations “notwithstanding the judgment of this Court directing that the number of posts earmarked for deputation in the cadres of the CAPFs upto the level of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) should be progressively reduced over a period of time, say within an upper limit of two years.” The explanatory affidavit is to be filed within two weeks, and the Court said it would continue to monitor implementation of the 2025 judgment, listing the matter for September 22.
Background: the 2025 judgment and the law that followed
The dispute has its roots in the Court’s May 2025 ruling in Sanjay Prakash, in which the Supreme Court held that the CAPFs are “organised Group A services” entitled to all consequential benefits, and directed that the practice of deputing IPS officers to senior CAPF posts be progressively curtailed so that the forces’ own cadre officers could rise to leadership positions. The judgment was widely seen as a landmark for the lakhs of personnel serving in the paramilitary forces, addressing a grievance over stagnation and thwarted promotions that had festered for years.
The present proceedings are significant because of what followed that judgment. As recorded in the reporting, Parliament this year passed the Central Armed Police Force (General Administration) Act, 2026, which provides that 50% of the posts at the rank of Inspector General, a minimum of 67% at Additional Director General, and all posts at the ranks of Special Director General and Director General, are to be filled by IPS officers on deputation a legislative framework widely understood as an attempt to negate the effect of the May 2025 judgment. The Supreme Court has separately issued notice on a writ petition challenging the validity of that Act. The contempt petitions now before the Bench thus sit within a larger contest between the judiciary’s direction to empower the paramilitary cadres and the executive-legislative response seeking to preserve the deputation regime a contest the Court’s pointed remarks on a “strong lobby” bring into sharp relief. Nothing has been finally decided in the contempt proceedings; the Court has sought the government’s explanation and will consider the matter afresh on September 22.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes All Student-Protest FIRs Nationwide Using Article 142
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Deo and Others v. Govind Mohan and Others [Contempt Petition (C) No. 37/2026 in C.A. No. 13106/2024 and connected matters]
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Order: September 2, 2026
For the Union: Aishwarya Bhati, ASG