There's Stark Non-Compliance With Direction For Cadre Review Of CAPFs, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court yesterday orally said that there seems to be a "stark" non-compliance with its Sanjay Prakash judgment(2025), where directions were issued for the Centre to take cadre review within the Central Armed Police Forces within 6 months.
A special bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing contempt petitions filed alleging non-compliance with the Sanjay Prakash judgment, where the Court had barred deputation of IPS officers into Central Armed Police Forces(CAPF).
It asked the Centre, through Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, what their explanation is for not complying with the 2025 directions, particularly cadre review. When Bhati informed that they have initiated the process, Justice Misra asked if the CAPF forces were informed that they are in violation of the Court's order since 6 months time line is over.
"When you invited the proposal of cadre review, did you inform them about the Court's order and that they are in violation of the orders? Violations may not be at your end but also on their end if they deferred sending the proposal...this is quite stark," Justice Misra said.
The Court has ordered the Centre to produce all the files incorporating the details of the action taken pursuant ot the May 23, 2025 order.
In this judgment, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Bhuyan(author) directed a cadre review of all CAPFs and to amend the recruitment rules of each CAPF in line with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated July 12, 2019, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), recognizing CAPFs as Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) within six months. The bench also directed to stop IPS deputations in CAPFs.
Subsequently, contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with the judgment.
In the meantime, the Centre brought the Central Armed Police Force (General Administration) Act 2026(notified on October 8) to override the Court's judgment. Another set of petitions was filed to challenge the vires of the Act.
Yesterday's hearing was kept for the purpose of determining whether contempt petitions could be heard independently of the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan(for IPS officers), Senior Advocate Aravind Datar(for ITBP officers), and Senior Advocate Guru KrishanKumar (for BSF officers) argued that the directions of the Court in the Sanjay Prakash judgment don't concern the deputation issue alone, which is the alleged defence taken by the Centre.
Cadre review pending since 2021, complete non-compliance: Senior Adv Shyam Divan
At the outset, Divan pointed out that the Centre didn't submit correct information at the last hearing that the Act had been notified. He clarified that the Act was only notified on October 8.
Further, the senior counsel submitted that his core argument is that the directions given by the Court in the 2025 judgment have no relation to the present Act. For instance, he pointed out that the first direction to do a comprehensive cadre review was something that has been pending since 2021. The Court had only asked them to carry out the 2021 pending review and gave 6 months.
Divan said this is a clear case of contempt, and added: "No provision prohibits cadre review. Here there is a complete non-compliance. Cadre review is due, and it doesn't relate to the Act."
Further, he referred to the recent affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs where 46 deputations have taken place. Justice Misra here asked if these deputations were prior to the judgment.
Divan responded that all have been after the judgment and that currently 61 deputations have taken place. He concluded by stating: "Till October 8, they didn't have an Act, and no direction is affected by the Act. They keep giving arguments on federal structures. We believe that the time has come for mylords to issue specific directions on cadre review. Regardless of whether contempt has been committed, the exercise needs to be done. Once it is completed, then we can progress and see the validity of the Act."
Open & shut case of non-compliance, legislative overruling not possible: Senior Advocate Aravind Datar
Adding to this, Datar pointed out that the review against the 2025 judgment was filed by the Centre, which was dismissed on October 28, 2025.
On this, Justice Misra asked if the Centre has filed any application for extension. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that they filed an application seeking an extension for 18-20 months. But this was opposed by Datar and others. Datar said that it was only in March 2026 that the Centre filed an extension application.
He said: "This is a clear case of contempt, an open-and-shut case. Only justification is that they have filed a modification application. They filed a review, which was dismissed in October 2025, and the miscellaneous application was filed only in March 2026. They took a chance at review, and miscellanous application is only an execuse to circumvent the court. Why this plea of 18-20 months is untenable: cadre review was due in 2021, and it was not carried out in 2025, the Court gave 6 months, and now they don't want to comply, is my submission."
Further, he referred to various judgments and argued that legislative overruling is not possible.
Act not a shield: Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar
Kumar made similar arguments and submitted that the Act can't provide an overarching shield to protect the Centre against the non-compliance of the directions.
"...this Act by no stretch can be a defence to say I don't need to do anything now," he said.
Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar also made brief arguments. He said that the extension application doesn't seem bona fide.
Hearing the parties, the Court ordered:
"An affidavit was filed, detailing the chronology of events post the judgment and order of this Court dated 23.5.25 of which violation is alleged. Learned counsel representing the contempt petitions have highlighted the infraction of the directions para-wise in Appendix 6 filed on 13.10.26.
They have submitted that the Act No 9 of 2026 has no bearing on the direction which required the respondents to carry out the cadre review in all the CAPFs, which was due in the year 2021 and was required to be carried out in 6 months under the order of which contempt is alleged.
Further, our attention has been invited to the alleged infraction of para 45 directions of the order, where under the respondents are required to progressively reduce the number of posts earmarked for deputation for CAPFs up to the level of SAG.
It has been urged that though the time period for such reduction was with an outer time limit for 2 years, such reduction ought to have been in continuum and not on the last time of time limit. It has been urged that there has been a violation by induction by deputation.
We notice from the chronology of the events set out in the compliance affidavit that Home Ministry had issued letters on 26.12.25 and 3.2.26 to all CAPFs for undertaking a comprehensive review of their existing Group A cadre and invited proposals. In this context, it has been urged by petitioners that the outer time limit has been set out for 6 months and here proposals were invited after 6 months, which is a flagrant violation of this court's order.
Our attention is invited to item 10, which indicates that a proposal was received from the concerned ministry as late as in April/May/July 2026. Whether a reminder was sent to the concerned forces for sending the proposal in terms of the Court's order needs to be ascertained. List this matter on 28 October.
On the next day, it shall produce the files incorporating the details regarding the action taken pursuant to the order of this Court, including action taken on the proposal so received pursuant to the order of this Court."