A Bill that secures IPS officers’ role in deputation

On March 25, 2026, the central government introduced the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 in the Rajya Sabha to regulate the general rules governing the recruitment and conditions of service of ‘Group A General Duty Officers’ (GAGDO) and other officers in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). This Bill provides that 50% of Inspector General posts, a minimum of 67% of Additional Director General posts (ADG), and all Special Director General (SDG) and Director General posts shall be filled by deputation from the Indian Police Service.

Applies across CAPFs

By implication, deputation to the rank of the Deputy Inspector General and below, shall continue to be regulated by the prevailing rules. The Bill also saves any financial benefits granted to the GAGDO (Group A officer of the rank of Assistant Commandant and above) issued before. This Act shall apply to the five CAPFs — Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Indo Tibetan Border Police and Sashastra Seema Bal. While the Bill aims to institutionalise the historical contributions and representation of the IPS in the CAPFs, it is seen by some as an instrument to undo the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Prakash and Others vs Union of India and Others (May 2025).

The Court ruled mainly on two issues; to complete the pending cadre review and undertake the review of service rules in a given time-period; and to progressively reduce the number of posts earmarked for deputation in the CAPFs up to the level of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) i.e., Inspector General rank, within a period of two years. It is thus clear that the recognition of the CAPFs as Organised Group ‘A’ Services (OGAS) was subject the provision of deputation of IPS officers to various CAPFs.

The Court noted that there are various issues connected with the deployment of CAPFs, including coordination with the State Governments and the State police force. The appointment of IPS officers in each CAPF is vital to maintain the character of each CAPF. This is a policy decision manifest through the service rules of the CAPFs. The question of who shall head these forces was never contentious. It was not even a case that the petitioners’ service conditions had worsened since they joined the service.

A ‘unifying link’

Most of the senior operational posts in States are held by ADG or SDG rank officers. Therefore, the appointment of IPS officers to the CAPFs at senior ranks is essential for smooth relations with the State forces. Their selection process and training, along with field experience, give them a broader vision and an edge in leading forces whose main aim is to assist or work in tandem with State forces. Those who use the term ‘parachuting IPS officers into CAPFs’ seem unaware of Sardar Patel’s vision, which envisaged the IPS as a unifying link between the Union and the States. The IPS officers have lived up to his dreams for decades, upholding the constitutional mandate.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, in January 2026, modified the empanelment guidelines of IPS officers at the Centre and made a minimum two-year stint at the Centre mandatory for empanelment at the rank of Inspector General. Therefore, the appointment of IPS officers in the Superintendent of Police (SP)/Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) ranks in the CAPFs will further cement their camaraderie with the cadre officers.

As far as reducing the posts of deputation is concerned, the Court seems to have ruled on the policy matter which exclusively falls within the domain of the legislature and executive. While the Court clearly stated that the matter of taking IPS officers on deputation is a policy matter and the central government in its wisdom had taken a view that the presence of IPS officers in each CAPFs is vital, it erred in directing the central government to reduce the posts of deputation.

Judiciary’s role

The duty of the court is to interpret law. Courts may fill gaps in certain spheres, but they are not to plunge into policy making by adding something. The court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an option it feels wiser to. The Court has previously held that ‘the wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power’.

The Court, in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others (1960), held that ‘the service provisions under … the Constitution do not enshrine any fundamental right of citizens; they relate to recruitment condition and tenure of service of persons, … appointed to a Civil Service or to posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State’. Rightly so. The Court, in Indian Ex Servicemen Movement and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.., held that it did not find any constitutional infirmity in the ‘One Rank One Pension’ principle.

The service conditions of CAPFs can be enhanced through regular intake and timely cadre reviews. The appointment of IPS officers on deputation to the CAPFs, being a policy matter beyond the scope of adjudication, is rightly being codified, leaving no room for divergent interpretations in the future.

R.K. Vij is a former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer