The recent debate surrounding contempt petitions in the Supreme Court has reignited an ongoing institutional conflict regarding leadership roles within the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). The core issue revolves around whether these senior positions should be occupied by officers who have dedicated their careers to the CAPFs or by Indian Police Service (IPS) officers who are assigned to these roles on a temporary basis.
This dispute is underscored by challenges related to promotion limitations, the implications of being classified as part of the Organised Group A Service, and a new legislative measure passed by Parliament earlier this year.
During a recent session, Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar were reviewing contempt petitions that claimed the Supreme Court’s ruling from May 23, 2025, regarding the career advancement of CAPF cadre officers and IPS officers on deputation was being ignored.
The session, scheduled for September 29, was intended for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to provide justification for the appointment of 46 IPS officers to the CAPFs, despite the court’s ruling to gradually reduce IPS deputation. Although the case was listed, it was removed from the agenda prior to the hearing.
The bench instructed the matter to be heard the following day and requested clarification from the court’s Registry. However, on September 30, the contempt petitions were presented to a specially formed bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Bhuyan, instead of the original bench.
The Registry indicated that the government had previously sought to have the contempt petitions heard alongside a separate case that contested the new CAPF law because the arguments in both cases were interconnected. However, attorneys representing CAPF officers contended that the alleged breaches of the 2025 verdict were separate from the challenge to the law.
This courtroom conflict is merely a recent chapter in a longstanding struggle that has persisted for over a decade.
At the center of this issue are five primary forces: the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), and the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). Each force features its own cadre of Group A executive officers, typically starting as Assistant Commandants, with the potential to ascend to higher ranks.
Traditionally, however, many senior roles have also been filled through deputation, particularly by IPS officers. Prior to the passage of the 2026 law, recruitment guidelines stipulated that 20% of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) and 50% of Inspector General (IG) positions could be appointed from outside the force.
Officers within the CAPF argue that this practice creates significant promotion barriers. As advancement opportunities dwindle at higher levels, reserving senior roles for deputation exacerbates the challenges faced by those who have devoted their careers to these forces.
This situation has contributed to their long-standing fight for Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU), which allows officers to receive the financial benefits associated with higher ranks even when promotions are unavailable due to a lack of vacancies.
In 2015, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of CAPF officers, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2019, leading to the Union Cabinet granting Organised Group A Service status and NFFU benefits to the CAPF’s Group A executive cadre officers.
Despite this progress, CAPF officers maintain that NFFU has not fully resolved the issue of stagnation. The implementation of NFFU has adhered to existing recruitment rules that require officers to serve a set number of years in each rank before being eligible for promotion. Consequently, even though NFFU allows for compensation at a higher pay grade without an actual promotion, the timeline for future financial upgradation may not commence until a promotion is realized.
For instance, an officer who receives 2IC-level pay after five years in the role of Deputy Commandant may remain financially stagnant if a promotion to 2IC is not achieved, as the service duration required for the next rank does not begin. CAPF officers argue that this perpetuates the stagnation that NFFU was designed to alleviate and have requested amendments to service rules to allow for progression based on total qualifying service instead of vacancy-based promotions.
The matter resurfaced in the Supreme Court in 2025, where the court ruled on May 23 that CAPFs should be recognized as Organised Group A Services, not only for NFFU purposes but also for related cadre considerations. The court mandated a review of the cadre and existing recruitment rules following consultations with CAPF representatives.
Crucially, it instructed that positions assigned for deputation up to the Senior Administrative Grade (DIG and IG) be gradually reduced over a two-year period. The Centre’s review petition was dismissed in October 2025.
The MHA defended the ongoing use of IPS deputation in Supreme Court proceedings by arguing that the operational roles of CAPFs are distinct from typical civilian Group A services, asserting that IPS officers serve as vital links between the central government and state police forces during deployments. IPS representatives involved in the legal proceedings also advocated for the continuation of the deputation system.
However, the Supreme Court did not prohibit IPS deputation altogether; rather, it sought to balance the government’s operational needs with the promotion stagnation faced by cadre officers, calling for a gradual reduction in deputation roles up to the Senior Administrative Grade.
CAPF personnel argue that those who have dedicated years to leading units and working in challenging environments should not find their own organizational hierarchy partially inaccessible.
The situation is further complicated by a paradox: the government has struggled to fill IPS-designated posts due to states’ reluctance to release officers for central deputation.
While this legal battle progressed, the government introduced the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill in Parliament, which was presented in the Rajya Sabha on March 25, passed by both houses in early April, and has since become law.
The newly enacted law establishes…
