The Supreme Court’s hearing on the cadre review case of Central Armed Police Forces last month has once again exposed the alleged systemic injustice meted out to Group A officers of the C A P Fs.
The continued reluctance to grant organized service status and its persistent defense of the deputation model—despite clear judicial observations against it—reflects an intentional policy of sidelining the career progression of CAPF officers.
One of the officers on the condition of not to be named said that the supreme Court honourable Justice Oka’s remarks rightly emphasize that deputation must be phased out, just as it was in the case of Army Officers.
He said : The question is: Why is the CAPF cadre still treated as a second-class leadership force within its own organization ?
If the functional requirements of the force demand seasoned leadership, then why does the government hesitate to empower its own officers?
The government’s argument that “functional requirements” justify continued deputation is deeply flawed. Functional requirements should strengthen institutional leadership, not undermine it by keeping CAPF officers in career stagnation while parachuting in IPS officers who neither have the operational experience nor the institutional grounding in CAPFs.
He categorically said that for the last 13 years, direct-entry CAPF officers like me have been stuck at the Deputy Commandant level while IPS officers, with minimal operational exposure in CAPFs, are fast-tracked into leadership roles. To my redicule, 2005 batch (parallel to my batch) IPS Officer comes to my force on deputation as an Inspector General (IG) that is four levels above me, this is height of discrimination said the officer.
The claim that CAPF officers are “a handful” conveniently ignores the reality that these are the cutting-edge leaders who operate in the most challenging environments. Are we to believe that a system which forces an officer to serve 20 years for just one promotion is a “functional requirement”? This is not a functional necessity—it is a policy deliberately designed to suppress and destroy CAPF leadership said the officer.
ASG Bhati’s argument that CAPFs are different from civilian organized Group A services is a smokescreen. CAPFs are even more demanding than many organized services, as they combine combat duties with internal security and law enforcement responsibilities. The denial of organized status, and the failure to grant rightful pay scales, is nothing short of institutional discrimination. The reference to IPS “pressure” in not granting attribute 4 is further proof that the government has long prioritised IPS interests over CAPF leadership, in violation of fairness and meritocracy.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directive for a summary of arguments is an opportunity for the CAPF cadre to present a strong, unequivocal case . The government cannot indefinitely hide behind vague commitments of “policy decisions.” If deputation was abolished/curtailed for the Army officers, why not for IPSs? If CAPF officers can rise to the SAG level, why are they denied further progression?
The next hearing must settle these questions once and for all said the officer adding that the stagnation imposed on us for over decades is not a career obstacle—it is a deliberate career blockade. This is the last opportunity for CAPFs to assert their right to a dignified career path. The Supreme Court must deliver justice, and the government must end this protracted policy of neglect and discrimination.
Going back to the arguments in the apex court – the factual account of the hearing (held on 19.02.2025 at 1210 Hrs in Court No. 04, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India), presented in accordance within the purview of Rule 9(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, applicable to all CAPF Officers.
The counsel representing the IPS Cadre, who identified himself as a former IPS Officer, referred to various rules and regulations governing the IPS Cadre and Deputations in Central Agencies. These included the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, IPS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Rules, 1955, as well as provisions from the BSF Act, 1968, and the SSB Act, 2007, to justify the deputation of IPS Officers to CAPFs. However, the Hon’ble Judge was already aware that certain rules permit the deputation of IPS Officers to CAPFs, though the extent of this deputation remains a point of debate.
The learned counsel defending the interests of IPS Officers and CIPSA also argued that 40% of IPS Officers are designated to be on deputation, citing the IPS Cadre Strength Rule and other related provisions. However, the specific rule that justifies the figure of 40% is still to be identified. Additionally, one of their claims suggested that CAPF Officers had been granted NFFU (Non-Functional Financial Upgradation) without fulfilling the required eligibility criteria. These were just some of the numerous arguments presented by their counsel to defend the continuation of deputation of IPS Officers to CAPFs, along with other aspects of the Recruitment Rules.
In contrast, the council for CAPF Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate and his team delivered an effective argument, presenting a series of Office Memorandums from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), and Cabinet decisions related to the approval and acceptance of the 6th Pay Commission’s recommendations concerning OGAS (Organised Group-A Services).
Mr. Dave highlighted that the benefits of OGAS had been extended to 60 out of 65 Organised Group-A services, with the exception of the five CAPFs, emphasizing the disparity between other OGAS services and CAPFs. He also pointed out that no IPS Officer had ever made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in CAPFs on deputation. Instead, it has been the personnel of CAPFs who have made the supreme sacrifices, further justifying the non-necessity of IPS Deputation in CAPFs, among other points.
There were additional assertions also made by both sides, and it was nearly impossible to capture every detail meticulously. So, to obtain a comprehensive account of the entire debate, the archives of the proceedings, once made publicly available on the official Supreme Court website, may be referred.
