Back
Seeks MHA's Explanation for Deputing 46 IPS Officers to CAPFs After 2025 Order
The has directed the Union Home Secretary to explain why 46 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers were deputed to senior positions in the (CAPFs) despite its May 2025 judgment ordering a of such . A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the order on , while hearing a batch of against MHA Secretary Govind Mohan over alleged with the court's earlier directions.
The May 2025 Judgment and Subsequent Affidavits
The dispute traces back to the 's landmark ruling on , in , which held that CAPFs are "organised Group A services" entitled to . The court directed that the practice of deputing IPS officers to senior CAPF posts be progressively curtailed within two years, allowing the forces' own cadre officers to rise to leadership positions.
To monitor compliance, the court on , ordered the Secretaries of the (MHA) and the (DoPT) to file individual affidavits detailing steps taken to implement the judgment. The affidavits were also required to disclose how many officers had been brought on to CAPFs up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level after the judgment.
46 Deputations After the Judgment
According to the MHA Secretary's affidavit, 46 IPS officers up to SAG level were deputed to five CAPFs after . The cadre-wise breakdown revealed: 13 officers to the (BSF) — eight Deputy Inspectors General (DIGs) and five Inspectors General (IGs); 11 to the (CISF) — nine DIGs and two IGs; nine to the (CRPF) — four DIGs and five IGs; six to the (ITBP) — three DIGs and three IGs; and seven to the (SSB) — two Superintendents of Police, two DIGs, and three IGs.
These numbers immediately drew the court's scrutiny, as they appeared to contradict the very direction to reduce .
Court's Scrutiny and Oral Observations
In the signed order, the bench directed the MHA Secretary to
"explain the above statement, for bringing in IPS officers on
to the five CAPFs; what procedure was followed before bringing the above officers on
i.e., whether any requisition was made by the borrowing department for
etc. and the reasons for bringing them on
notwithstanding the judgment of this Court directing that the number of posts earmarked for
in the cadres of the CAPFs upto the level of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) should be progressively reduced over a period of time, say within an upper limit of two years."
During the hearing,
argued that the matter was not a CAPF-versus-IPS issue. Justice Bhuyan, however, was visibly unpersuaded, orally remarking:
"Do you think that there are no competent officers in the CAPF to hold managerial positions? It is wrong… totally wrong… There are officers who have served for 25-30 years in CRPF, ITBP and BSF, and yet they have not been given… why are you treating them like this? They are also defending our borders. They are also making supreme sacrifices."
The judge further stated:
"I am sorry to use this word, but there is a strong lobby there and they are virtually… officers of cadres such as the CRPF, ITBP and BSF are completely stifled."
These remarks underscore the court's concern over the faced by .
The Broader Legislative Context
Notably, Parliament earlier this year passed the , which provides that 50% of Inspector General posts, a minimum of 67% of Additional Director General posts, and all posts of Special Director General and Director General shall be filled by IPS officers on — a move widely seen as an attempt to negate the May 2025 judgment. The has separately issued notice on a writ petition challenging the validity of this Act. The contempt proceedings thus sit within a larger contest between and .
What Happens Next
The court has given the MHA Secretary two weeks to file an , after which it will continue monitoring implementation of the 2025 judgment. The matter is listed for further hearing on , at 2:00 p.m. The bench made clear that nothing has been finally decided in the contempt proceedings, and the government's explanation will be considered before any further orders are passed.
