46 IPS Officers Deputed to CAPFs After Supreme Court Order: Home Secretary Govind Mohan Explains Centre’s Stand
The continuing dispute over the deputation of Indian Police Service officers to the Central Armed Police Forces has once again reached the centre of proceedings in the Supreme Court, with Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan explaining why 46 IPS officers were brought into five CAPFs after the court’s landmark May 2025 judgment.
The Centre has told the Supreme Court that these deputations were made through the existing administrative mechanism and followed requisitions from the concerned Central Armed Police Forces. The government’s position is that the May 23, 2025 judgment did not impose an immediate blanket ban on IPS deputation, but directed that deputation posts up to the Senior Administrative Grade, or SAG, should be progressively reduced within an outer limit of two years.
The matter assumes significance because the Supreme Court itself sought a detailed explanation after the Ministry of Home Affairs disclosed that 46 IPS officers had joined five CAPFs on deputation after the May 2025 ruling. The court is monitoring how its directions are being implemented, while CAPF cadre officers have continued to raise concerns over promotional avenues and the occupation of senior positions by deputationists.
Why Did the Supreme Court Ask the Home Secretary for an Explanation?
The present proceedings arise from the long-running service-related dispute involving Group-A executive officers of the CAPFs. Officers from the forces have argued that their career progression has suffered because senior positions are also filled through lateral entry by officers on deputation, particularly from the IPS.
The Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 judgment in Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. dealt with these grievances in considerable detail. The court recognised the Group-A executive cadres of the five CAPFs as Organised Group-A Services for cadre-related purposes and directed the government to undertake cadre reviews and examine the existing recruitment and service rules.
At the same time, the court recognised the operational responsibilities of the CAPFs and the government’s stated position that IPS officers had an important functional role within these organisations. Instead of ordering an immediate end to deputation, the court directed that the number of posts earmarked for deputation up to the SAG level should be progressively reduced over a period of time, with an outer limit of two years.
It was against this backdrop that the court, on September 2, 2026, asked the Union Home Secretary to explain the circumstances in which the 46 officers had subsequently been deputed.
46 IPS Officers Joined Five CAPFs After May 2025
The figures placed before the Supreme Court show that the 46 IPS officers were distributed among the Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police and Sashastra Seema Bal.
Taken together, the 46 officers comprised 2 SPs, 26 DIGs and 18 IGs. The Supreme Court recorded these figures in its September 2 order while seeking an explanation from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The numbers became particularly important because the appointments were made after the court had already directed the Centre to progressively reduce deputation posts up to the SAG level. The court therefore wanted clarity on the procedure followed for these appointments and the reasons behind continuing such deputations.
Court Wanted to Know Whether CAPFs Had Made Formal Requisitions
The September 2 order specifically asked the Ministry of Home Affairs to explain whether the borrowing departments or CAPFs had formally requisitioned the officers before they were brought on deputation.
The court also sought details of the procedure followed in making the appointments. It wanted the Centre to explain why the deputations were undertaken after the May 2025 judgment, given the direction for a progressive reduction of deputation posts within two years.
The Supreme Court directed the Home Secretary to file an affidavit within two weeks and said it would continue monitoring compliance with the May 23, 2025 judgment. The matter was subsequently listed for September 22, 2026.
Govind Mohan’s Explanation: No Absolute Ban on Deputation
In his response, Home Secretary Govind Mohan set out the Centre’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling.
The government has maintained that the May 2025 judgment should not be read as an absolute prohibition on fresh IPS deputations to the CAPFs during the transition period. According to the Centre, the court had called for a progressive reduction in deputation posts, rather than directing that every existing mechanism for bringing IPS officers into the forces should immediately cease.
The Centre has also stressed the procedural aspect of the appointments. Its explanation is that the officers were brought on deputation under the established administrative framework and following requisitions from the respective CAPF leadership.
That distinction is now central to the dispute. While CAPF cadre officers are focusing on the Supreme Court’s direction to reduce deputation and improve career mobility, the government is pointing to the existing rules, operational requirements and requisitions made by the forces themselves.
Five CAPFs Are at the Centre of the Dispute
The controversy covers five major Central Armed Police Forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs – the CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB.Each force has a distinct operational mandate. The BSF and ITBP are primarily associated with border guarding responsibilities, the CRPF has a major role in internal security and counter-insurgency operations, the CISF protects critical infrastructure and installations, while the SSB is responsible for guarding India’s borders with Nepal and Bhutan.
The service dispute, however, cuts across these different operational responsibilities. CAPF Group-A officers have argued that when senior positions are occupied through deputation, officers who have spent much of their careers within the respective forces may face restricted promotional opportunities.
The Supreme Court took note of this concern in its 2025 judgment, observing that stagnation among cadre officers could affect the morale of the forces. At the same time, it also acknowledged the government’s position that IPS officers were considered necessary for the operational and functional requirements of the CAPFs.
What Exactly Did the Supreme Court Direct in May 2025?
The May 23, 2025 judgment went well beyond the immediate question of IPS deputation. The court dealt with the broader issue of whether the CAPFs should receive the benefits associated with Organised Group-A Services and how their cadre structures and recruitment rules should be reviewed. It directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to undertake a review of the existing service and recruitment rules of the respective CAPFs, with participation from representatives of the cadre officers.
The court also directed that the long-pending cadre review exercise be undertaken and that the relevant administrative processes be completed within prescribed timelines. Most importantly for the present controversy, it said that deputation posts in CAPF cadres up to the SAG level should be progressively reduced within an outer limit of two years.
The court’s approach therefore attempted to accommodate two competing concerns: the career progression of officers belonging to the CAPF cadres and what the government described as the operational and functional requirements of the forces.
Centre’s Review Petition Was Dismissed in October 2025
The Union government subsequently sought a review of the May 2025 judgment. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the review petition on October 28, 2025. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concluded that no case for review had been made out, leaving the original May 2025 judgment in place.
The dismissal added another layer to the continuing dispute because the government’s administrative position on IPS deputation remained relevant while the court’s direction on progressive reduction was still under implementation.
The subsequent deputations therefore became an issue in contempt proceedings initiated by CAPF officers and veterans, who have questioned whether the May 2025 directions are being implemented in their intended form.
CAPF General Administration Act, 2026 Adds to the Legal Debate
The controversy has taken another turn with the enactment of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026. The legislation provides a statutory framework for several aspects of senior-level appointments in the CAPFs.
Reports concerning the legislation state that 50 per cent of Inspector General-level posts are to be filled by IPS officers on deputation, while at least 67 per cent of Additional Director General posts and all Special Director General and Director General posts are earmarked for IPS officers on deputation.
The legislation has itself been challenged before the Supreme Court. That challenge creates a separate constitutional question around the relationship between the new statutory framework, the existing service structure and the court’s May 2025 directions.
As a result, the present controversy is no longer confined to the question of individual deputations. It now involves the interpretation and implementation of the 2025 judgment as well as the legal validity and effect of the 2026 legislation.
Why CAPF Cadre Officers Are Raising the Issue
At the heart of the dispute is career progression. Group-A executive officers of the CAPFs have argued that prolonged occupation of senior positions by deputationists can restrict opportunities for officers who have spent years serving within their respective forces. Their concerns relate not merely to individual appointments but to the structure of the cadres and the number of promotional positions available as officers move up the hierarchy.
The Supreme Court acknowledged these concerns in its 2025 judgment, while also noting the demanding nature of CAPF duties, including border management and internal security responsibilities. The court recognised that stagnation could have an impact on morale, but it also recorded the government’s position that IPS presence was considered important for the operational character of the forces.
This balance is important to understanding the present proceedings. The court did not simply reject the government’s operational argument, nor did it ignore the concerns of CAPF cadre officers. Instead, its May 2025 directions sought to address both sides through cadre review, changes to service and recruitment rules and a phased reduction in deputation posts.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court’s monitoring of the implementation of its May 23, 2025 judgment now places the 46 post-judgment IPS deputations under closer scrutiny. The Centre has explained that the appointments were processed under the established framework and that requisitions were made by the concerned CAPFs. The government is also maintaining that the 2025 judgment requires a gradual reduction rather than an immediate cessation of all IPS deputations.
For the CAPF cadre officers, however, the larger concern remains career progression and the structure of senior-level posts. The Supreme Court will have to consider these competing aspects while monitoring compliance with its earlier directions and separately dealing with the challenge to the 2026 legislation.
The dispute, therefore, is likely to remain an important service and administrative law issue involving the five CAPFs, the IPS deputation system, cadre management and the respective roles of the executive and judiciary. With the Supreme Court continuing to monitor the implementation of its 2025 ruling, the questions surrounding senior appointments, promotional avenues and the future structure of CAPF cadres remain firmly before the court and the Union government.
