CAPF Stagnation And Problem Of Legislative Override

THE SUPREME COURT'S CORE REASONING IN SANJAY PRAKASH

In Sanjay Prakash (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with the core question of whether the members of the CAPFs could be treated as part of an Organised Group-A Service(“OGAS”), so as to entitle them to career progression up to the Senior Administrative Grade(“SAG”) and higher posts, and to reduce, over time, the role of deputation by IPS officers in those ranks. The Court traced the origin of the dispute to the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which distinguished between Group-A civil posts that form part of Organised Group-A Services and those that do not, classifying the latter as Group-A General Central Services. The Commission also noted that, despite earlier cadre reviews, several services continued to suffer from serious stagnation at the SAG and HAG levels, and therefore recommended uniform eligibility criteria across OGAS.

The Supreme Court also drew support from the decision of Delhi High Court in 2015 of G.J. Singh v. Union of India where it noted that as early as 29.10.1986, the Central Government had itself referred to the BSF and CRPF as examples of organised services. This was not an isolated reference. In subsequent service-related monographs published in 1986, 1993 and 2010, the Government again treated the BSF, CRPF, ITBP and CISF as being comparable in nature and functioning, and placed them within the same Group-A Central Civil Services framework. The Court further held that the six characteristics listed in the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2009 for identifying OGAS were not rigid or exhaustive, and that minor deviations would not disqualify a service from being recognised as such.

The matter was carried in appeal, and the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Harananda considered whether CRPF officers were entitled to Non-Functional Financial Upgradation(NFFU) a benefit that allows an officer to draw the pay of the next higher grade without an actual promotion. The Court answered this in the affirmative and observed that CAPF officers did form part of OGAS. That conclusion was later relied upon in Sanjay Prakash (supra), where the Court treated the issue as substantially settled by its earlier decision.

The Supreme Court also placed significant weight on the Office Memorandum dated 12.07.2019, through which the Ministry of Home Affairs had already recognised CAPF officers as part of OGAS. By that memorandum, the competent authority had approved the grant of OGAS status to the Group-A executive cadres of the CAPFs and the Railway Protection Force, along with the consequential benefits of NFFU and NFSG. The Court further noted that the DoPT had, for cadre review and related service matters, already treated the RPF and the Group-A executive cadres of the CAPFs as OGAS under the same memorandum. This administrative recognition was important because it showed that the Government itself had, at least in substance, accepted the organised character of these services before the dispute reached its final judicial stage.

The Apex Court concluded that the existing deputation structure, especially the continued presence of IPS officers in senior CAPF posts, had contributed to long-standing stagnation in the career progression of cadre officers. It therefore directed that deputation to CAPF posts up to the Senior Administrative Grade should be progressively reduced over time, within an outer limit of two years, and that the pending cadre review should be completed. Thus, the central foundation of Sanjay Prakash(supra) rested on three connected grounds: firstly, the accepted OGAS status of CAPF officers, supported by earlier judicial decisions and governmental memoranda explicitly admitting them; second, the Court's acceptance that the statutory and service structure must reflect that status in a meaningful way; and third, the continuing grievance of stagnation caused by excessive deputation, which the Court sought to remedy through progressive reduction and cadre review.

HOW THE CAPF BILL, 2026 FAILS TO DISPLACE THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT

In NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 INSC 810 the Supreme Court reiterated that a legislature may validly override a judicial decision only by removing the very foundation on which the decision rests, and only if the amendment does not violate any other constitutional limitation. The alteration must be such “that it would no more be possible for the court to arrive at the same verdict. In other words, the very premise of the earlier judgment should be removed, thereby resulting in a fundamental change of the circumstances upon which it was founded.” The Court further cautioned that abrogation cannot be used as a device to merely defeat an unfavourable ruling; if an amendment is enacted only to defy judicial pronouncement, it may be struck down as ultra vires and treated as “colourable legislation”.

Now Section 3 of the CAPF Bill, 2026 starts from a notwithstanding clause overriding any judicial precedent and order. It states firstly that 50% of the posts to be filled by deputation in the rank of SAG/IG and atleast 67% of the posts to be filled by deputation in the rank of Additional Director General with a caveat that the posts in the ranks of Special Director General and Director General shall be filled by deputation only. This defeats the whole ruling of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Prakash(supra) and Harananda(supra) which ruled that deputations to the post of CAPF Cadre officers upto the rank of SAG should progressively reduce. The three foundational grounds as discussed aforesaid are not dealt with by the new legislation. It fails to reconcile with the fact that CAPF Cadre officers waiting for promotion still form part of OGAS thus they are at a stronger footing of eligibility for promotion than deputation of IPS officers from other cadres. The consequential benefits arising out of CAPF officers being part of OGAS should follow which include promotion to these posts. The grievance of stagnation faced by CAPF officers in employment still persists which the legislation aggravated by overruling cognizant decision of the Apex Court, which had rejected the review petitions of Union.

Section 7 of the CAPF Bill, 2026, which gives the legislation overriding effect in case of any inconsistency, does not by itself cure the defect in the Bill. The difficulty is that the foundation of Sanjay Prakash(supra) remains untouched as the Supreme Court had proceeded on the recognised OGAS status of CAPF officers and on the need to progressively reduce IPS deputation in senior CAPF posts, whereas the Bill still preserves deputation at the IG, ADG, SDG and DG levels. In that sense, the Bill appears less like a genuine legislative response to the judgment and more like an attempt to displace it without altering its core basis. A valid policy decision ought to have been conscious of the judgment and reworked the service structure accordingly, rather than simply overriding earlier legal position by force of Section 7.

CONSEQUENCES 

If the CAPF Bill, 2026 is enforced in its present form, the most immediate consequence is likely to be the continuation, and possibly the deepening, of career stagnation among CAPF officers, because the Bill preserves deputation at the very senior levels while the Supreme Court had already linked excessive deputation to blocked promotional avenues and long-standing service grievance. This may also reduce morale within the forces, since the Court had specifically said that recognising CAPFs as OGAS should carry its natural consequences, including a meaningful cadre structure and reduced lateral entry at the top. The result thus is renewed litigation and continuing uncertainty (without Cadre review pending since 2021) over whether the State has actually reformed the cadre structure. In conclusion, the Bill appears less like a true corrective measure and more like an attempt to preserve an existing hierarchy despite the Supreme Court's clear emphasis on OGAS recognition, cadre review, and reduction of deputation. A policy decision of this kind ought to have engaged with the judgment in substance, not only in form.