Concerns over IPS appointments in CAPFs

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and governance

Context

• Despite a recent Supreme Court directive to reduce IPS deputations in CAPFs, the Ministry of Home Affairs continues such appointments, reigniting concerns about  the autonomy of Group A CAPF officers.

Background

• In the case of Sanjay Prakash & Others vs Union of India, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that:
  • Group A officers of CAPFs are to be treated as “Organised Services” for all purposes.
  • The deputation of IPS officers to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) posts i.e., up to the rank of Inspector General (IG), in CAPFs should be progressively reduced within an outer limit of two years.
• Purpose of the Ruling: The decision aimed to ensure fair career progression for CAPF cadre officers and to curb the longstanding dominance of deputed IPS officers within CAPFs.

Role of the Ministry of Home Affairs

• The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) serves as the administrative authority for both the Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).
• The MHA has traditionally justified the deputation of IPS officers on grounds such as;
  • Bringing in policing experience from state cadres to strengthen central forces.
  • Maintaining a uniform standard of leadership across all forces.
• Despite the Supreme Court’s directive, at least eight IPS officers have been appointed to senior positions in the CAPFs since the May 2025 ruling.
  • These include appointments to posts such as Commandant and Inspector General.

Concerns of IPS appointments in CAPFs

• Stagnation in Career Progression: Due to high reservation of senior ranks (e.g., 50% IG posts) for IPS officers, CAPF cadre officers face limited promotional opportunities.
  • On average, a CAPF officer takes 25 years to reach the rank of Commandant, a position they should ideally achieve in 13 years.
• Violation of Organisational Integrity: The continued deputation of IPS officers hampers institutional autonomy and the long-term professionalization of CAPFs as elite forces.
• Legal and Administrative Implications: The Supreme Court’s recognition of CAPF Group A services as Organised Services implies the government must carry out cadre reviews, amend recruitment rules, and grant Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU).
  • Continuing IPS appointments without structural changes is both administratively inconsistent and legally questionable.
• Violation of Natural Justice and Equality: Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and Articles 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) come into play, as CAPF cadre officers are denied equal promotional avenues compared to their IPS counterparts.

Policy Recommendations

• Implementation of the SC Order: MHA must create a transition plan to phase out IPS deputations in SAG and higher posts over the next two years as directed.
• Conduct cadre reviews across all CAPFs and amend Recruitment Rules (RRs) to ensure promotions are based on merit and experience within the CAPFs.
• Grant Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU): Ensure parity in pay and career progression for CAPF officers to maintain morale.
• Parliamentary Oversight: Establish a Parliamentary Standing Committee review to examine deputation practices and career stagnation in CAPFs.
• Transparent Deputation Policy: Develop a uniform and transparent policy on inter-cadre deputations, clearly laying down eligibility, tenure, and objective criteria.

Source: TH