Codified Apartheid in Uniform? Part Two

The CAPF Bill 2026—The Cadre’s Deep Sense of Betrayal and the Supreme Court as the Ultimate Refuge

After Thought

The IPS maintain a robust association to advocate for their interests, a right systematically denied to the CAPF cadre. Even state police forces across India possess associations to voice grievances. The situation has reached a laughable irony: a commander possesses the right to an association to look after his own interests, yet denies that same right to those under his command—and then asserts a moral right to lead them.

The cadre is frequently forced to seek legal recourse even for fundamental entitlements like House Rent Allowance (HRA), which are available to other services as a matter of course.

It is strange and illogical that successive governments have repeatedly shied away from granting these basic benefits, often tying two distinct allowances together despite their different purposes. This persistent neglect feels amiss, as if an intermediary consistently misguides the powers-on-high on every issue.

A Question of Fairness and Recognition

A solution is readily available, but only if there is a genuine interest in fairness. “Furthermore, arguments supporting deputation cite medals and honours as proof of contribution. Cadre officers respond that those commanding 15,000–20,000 men in the Kashmir Valley historically rarely returned without a gallantry medal—easily enabled by road access for oversight and reporting, a facility often absent in the rugged LWE terrain. Yet no questions were raised. One must ask: did any Major General ever receive such a medal under similar circumstances? The disparity in medals and award culture says it all.”

Internal Rethinking and Political Shift

Perhaps the most significant and interesting outcome of this Bill is the internal rethinking it has sparked within the cadre. A large number of cadre officers, who were committed followers of the BJP and supported the narrative on every issue for more than a decade, have now switched sides, viewing this legislation as a definitive breach of trust.

The timing of this legislation adds a layer of bitter irony. It was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on March 25—shortly after Balidan Diwas commemorating Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru—and received Presidential assent on April 9, the very day the nation celebrates CRPF Valour Day. To praise the forces’ critical role in eradicating Naxalism one moment, only to undermine their professional dignity the next, hurts far more—it reveals a glaring disconnect between words of appreciation and deeds that diminish their hard-earned stature.

Response from Retd CRPF IG Sh. K.K. Sharma

Retd CRPF IG Sh. K.K. Sharma, in one of his posts responding to an article supporting the bill, by retired IPS RK Vij, says:

“Dear Vij Sahab,

In your write-up, you argue that appointments, postings, and policy decisions are the exclusive domain of the Central/State Governments and do not fall within the realm of fundamental rights. While this may be valid in principle, in the context of CAPFs, this argument tends to obscure the real issue.

History bears testimony that several distinguished IPS officers—such as K. F. Rustamji, V.G. Kanetkar, and K. P. S. Gill—rendered exemplary service in CAPFs. However, these very stalwarts also clearly emphasized that once CAPF cadre officers attain seniority, they should be entrusted with higher leadership roles. Former Home Secretary L. P. Singh also held the same view. Therefore, the real issue is not “who posts whom,” but one of justice and rightful entitlement.

On one hand, there are CAPF officers and personnel who fight in LWE areas, make the ultimate sacrifices, and suffer permanent disabilities; on the other hand, they are denied leadership opportunities within their own forces. This is not merely an administrative matter—it is a moral question. Most importantly, this outcome is not the result of a one-day hearing or a superficial debate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has arrived at its conclusions after a long, multi-year, rigorous judicial process, examining all arguments in depth. In my view, the legal principles and precedents you refer to would have already been presented before the Court by the learned counsel of the Union of India. To assume otherwise would be to question the wisdom and intellectual rigor of the Supreme Court itself—something we, as members of the service class, should refrain from. It would amount to showing a lamp to the sun.

When the Court can lay down detailed guidelines even in sensitive matters like Article 356, it is only reasonable to expect that it has duly considered and addressed the injustice faced by CAPF officers. There is also a fundamental point to consider—since Independence, the leadership of these forces has largely remained with the IPS. Therefore, the structural issues that exist today must also be owned by that leadership. Had the management been balanced and empathetic, such a situation would not have arisen. If the leadership had adopted a more fair and sympathetic approach towards the cadre officers of the forces they command, they themselves would have supported granting “Organised Service” status to CAPF officers. Instead, what we have seen is unnecessary resistance.

Across India, this status has been extended to numerous other services without controversy. The fact that resistance arises only in the case of CAPFs indicates that the issue is less about principle and more about control and vested interests. This Bill, in essence, curtails several constitutionally guaranteed rights and creates a perception akin to second-class citizenship for CAPF personnel. One can reasonably conclude that no force in the world will ultimately be able to sustain such a law—even if passed by Parliament through sheer numerical strength, it is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

We have never argued that IPS officers should be displaced from their legitimate roles. You continue to serve where you are—our best wishes are with you. However, what belongs to CAPFs must rightfully be given to CAPFs. I would therefore urge you to view this matter with fairness and empathy. At this stage, the issue is no longer complex—the only question that remains is the implementation of the justice already delivered by the Supreme Court, without delay.”

Insights from Retired CRPF IG Sh. R.K. Yadav

Retired CRPF IG, Sh. R.K. Yadav in his post responding to Anand Mishra, a former IPS and BJP MLA Buxar, says:

“Dear Anand,

Your appreciation of the issue, I say this with due respect, does not appear to be grounded in the full factual and legal context. Diverting the core concern towards a debate on so-called “IPS hegemony” in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) does not address the real question at hand. Let me clarify at the outset: there is no contest between services. We hold the Indian Police Service, and every other service, in equal regard. Each was created with a defined mandate to serve the people of this country. The present issue is not about inter-service comparison, but about adherence to established service jurisprudence and principles of fairness within the framework of Organized Group ‘A’ Services (OGAS).

The CAPFs—such as Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force, and others—have been recognized as Organized Group ‘A’ Services. The fundamental attribute of an OGAS is a structured cadre management system ensuring assured career progression through internal promotions, particularly for posts up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), which in these forces corresponds to the level of Inspector General (IG). It is precisely this principle that cadre officers have been consistently asserting. The demand is simple and legitimate: that posts up to SAG level be filled by promotion from within the cadre, as is the norm across other OGAS in the Government of India. This is neither a demand for exclusivity nor an opposition to deputation. Deputation is a well-recognized administrative tool, and we are not against it. However, deputation cannot become a mechanism to structurally deny cadre officers their rightful promotional avenues.

The issue has also been examined judicially. The Supreme Court of India, after considering all arguments—including those relating to operational requirements, coordination, and leadership inputs from IPS officers—did not accept the justification for continued deviation from OGAS principles in CAPFs. The spirit of that judgment was to restore parity and uphold cadre rights. It is pertinent to note that the Railway Protection Force, functioning under the Ministry of Railways, has moved towards implementing the judicial directive in letter and spirit. This demonstrates that administrative alignment with the legal position is both feasible and practical. The divergence in approach by the Ministry of Home Affairs, therefore, raises legitimate concerns.

What is even more troubling is the recent legislative attempt to accord statutory backing to a structure that effectively bypasses the intent of the judicial pronouncement. If this perception holds true, it risks undermining not only cadre morale but also the sanctity of service rules and the principle of equality across OGAS. The recurring arguments—that IPS officers are inherently more competent, better strategists, or superior in coordination—are neither substantiated nor relevant in a rules-based system. Competence is not the monopoly of any one service, and institutional frameworks cannot be built on subjective assessments. CAPF cadre officers have decades of operational experience, field exposure, and institutional knowledge that are indispensable to these forces.

Let us, therefore, not lose sight of the real issue. This is about:

• Upholding the defined structure of Organized Group ‘A’ Services

• Ensuring fair and predictable career progression for cadre officers

• Respecting judicial pronouncements

• Maintaining institutional integrity over individual or service-based preferences

We are not against any service, nor are we seeking to exclude anyone. We are only seeking what is already recognized in law and practice across the Government of India. I hope you will reconsider your position in light of these facts and engage with the issue in its proper legal and administrative context.”

More From Same Pen

Codified Apartheid in Uniform? Part – 1

CAPF Bill 2026: The Battle Lines

A Tale of Two DGs and Three Ministries by Sh J S Gill

Retd ADG CRPF, Sh J S Gill in his post, appropriately titled “A TALE OF TWO DG’s AND THREE MINISTRIES” writes:

In any organisation, the leadership plays a decisive role at difficult times. I shall narrate instances of two situations where DG’s of CRPF reacted in two different ways. Firstly I shall take up the case of Shri V G Kanetkar IP who became first Independent IG’s of CRPF on 28 June 1963. He also had the distinction of becoming first DG of CRPF on 2nd August 1968. I shall not dwell on his achievements which are well known to all the cadre of officers of CRPF. Writing in his Memoirs “THOSE MEMORABLE YEARS” published in the history of CRPF in 2001, he reflects:-

“Some time in early 1966, a memo was received from the Home Ministry asking me how many I.P.S officers would be needed in the Force in the next 12 months or so to fill up the posts of Commandants and DIsG in the Force. The practice then was to draw serving or on the verge of retirement Lt. Colonels from the army to work as Commandants along with I.P.S officers from different states for posts of both Commandants and DIsG. By this time however a number of our young officers who had been recruited as direct Dy.SsP (i.e. Company Commanders) and passed out of the Central Training College at Neemuch, had attained sufficient seniority to be considered for promotion as Commandants and some middle aged officers who had worked as Commandants in the C.R.P.F for a number of years as such were fit enough to occupy the posts of even DIsG. I felt that the claims of such officers for higher rungs could not be ignored altogether and to that extent, the induction of officers from outside must be curtailed gradually. I placed these views of mine before the Government which found them acceptable. From that time began the ascent of our directly recruited or experienced officers to the DIG’s slot and later even that of IsGP”.

That shows the commitments of Mr V G Kanetkar IP who had no favourites. His bold and unequivocal stand paved the way for the promotion of direct officers (DAGOs).

Contrast the above action of the Shri V G Kanetkar DG CRPF with Shri Rajiv Rai Bhatnagar IPS who served as DG CRPF from 28-04-2017 to 31-12-2019. Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petition filed by Union of India and others against the order of Delhi High Court on 05-02-2019. Consequently the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has approved the proposal for grant of organised group ‘A’ service (OGAS) to group ‘A’ executive cadre officers of central armed police forces (CAPFs) and extension of benefits of Non-functional financial upgradation (NFFU) AND Non-functional selection grade(NFSG).

Shri R R Bhatnagar must have been fully aware of the stagnation in the cadre at all ranks and the level of dissatisfaction. Instead of straight way implementing the Hon’ble Supreme court judgment dated 5-02-2019, he chose to take a circuitous route of conniving with DG’s of other CAPF to deny full benefits of (OGAS) and NFFU to the CRPF officers. This joint consultation of all DGs of CAPF resulted in truncated implementation of NFFU through a very discriminatory order by DOPT which was issued on 30-09-2019 bringing in the issue of one time relaxation which was not the need of hour at all. All subsequent DG’s of CRPF followed the same discriminatory attitude towards Cadre officers which has finally resulted in the presentation and hurried passing of CAPF bill 2026 in both houses of parliament.

It is worth mentioning here that sometime in early September 2019, we 06 veterans of CRPF met Shri R R Bhatnagar DG CRPF in his office. The officers included Shri DC Dey ADG Retd, Shri J S Gill ADG Retd, Shri H R Singh ADG Retd, Shri S P Singh ADG Retd, Shri VP S Panwar IG Retd, Shri S S Sandhu IG Retd and Shri Devender Kumar DIG Retd. The DG was very indifferent, and rude to all of us and rather remarked that we were over ambitious. We all came out most disappointed.

Case of Three Ministries

The Department of personnel and training (DOPT) comes under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. This ministry directly comes under the Prime Minister through a minister of state. DOPT has been unfair to CAPF cadres from the very beginning i.e. 1986 when it denied the OGAS status to all CAPF though it is mentioned in the monograph. The DOPT wide its OM Dated 15-12-2009 revised the eligibility requirement for promotion to the grades of SAG and HAG. DOPT have been agreeing to grant NFU benefits in some of the Services based on the instructions of 15-12-2009 pending amendment of Rules. Though there are almost sixty organised services, I shall mention only three namely Ministry of Mines, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Home Affairs. There is no particular bias for selecting these three ministries. We also have no grudge against other organised services getting full benefits of OGAS and NFFU.

1. MINISTRY OF MINES: In the light of DOPT OM 15-12-2009 the ministry of mines directed the Director General. Geological Survey of India, to grant NFFU as per revised eligibility conditions for SAG and HAG w.e.f. 15-12-2009. The notification for revised rules was issued by the Ministry of Mines 29 September 2010. Just for the sake of comparison the number of posts in HAG and SAG which were 2 and 30 respectively in 2010 are more than 6 and 64 respectively today.

2. MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS: The Railway Protection Force (RPF) was officially granted Organised Group ‘A’ Status (OGAS) by the Ministry of Railways in December 2019. Following this declaration, the Group ‘A’ cadre of the RPF was renamed the Indian Railway Protection Force Service (IRPFS).

Key Details of the Declaration

• Cabinet Approval: The Union Cabinet approved the grant of OGAS to the RPF on July 10, 2019, following directives from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

• Formal Notification: The Ministry of Railways issued the formal notification on December 30, 2019, renaming the cadre to IRPFS.

• Status of the Force: While the officer cadre was granted OGAS, the force itself remains a statutory Armed Force of the Union under the RPF (Amendment) Act 1985.

Benefits of OGAS Status

The grant of OGAS brought RPF officers at par with other organised central services (like the IAS or IPS) in terms of financial and career benefits:

• Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU): Officers are entitled to pay scale upgrades based on the promotion of their batchmates, even if they themselves haven’t been promoted, effectively ending career stagnation.

• Career Progression: The status ensures a structured cadre review and improved promotional avenues.

• Uniformity: Residency periods for promotions and service conditions were aligned more closely with other premier services like the Indian Police Service (IPS).

• Only post of Director General RPF is manned by an IPS Officer. All other group A posts are manned by RPF cadre officers.

3. Ministry of Home Affairs: All the cadre officers are fully aware of all discriminations meted out to CAPF officers since long which culminated in the passing of CAPF Bill 2026 in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 1st and 2nd April respectively.

In the end, I shall say that CRPF and other CAPFs have reached this level through the blood and sweat of all ranks and the efforts of legendary DGs like Shri V G Kanetkar IP, Shri K F Rustam Ji IP, Shri L P Singh then Home Secretary and many other officers and men. If the Hon’ble DHC and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have dispensed justice to CAPF’s till now there is no reason to feel different now.

The Closing Word

Sh Vivek Tankha, Honorable MP in one of his recent post points out that:

“GOI insistence to get the #CAFPbill passed in LS in haste looks strange & inexplicable. Significant HHM @AmitShah deputed MOS in RS to reply to our questions & doubts; realising its strong divisive potential; will be a non-starter law. Final word will be Supreme Court”

This summarizes the crux of the issue perfectly. The next few weeks will be crucial in determining the final outcome, with cadre officers remaining hopeful that the Supreme Court will provide their final deliverance.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What is the CAPF Bill 2026 controversy about? The controversy centers on the “Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026,” which seeks to legally reserve top leadership positions—including 100% of Director General (DG) and Special DG posts—for IPS officers. This effectively blocks the career progression of native CAPF cadre officers, despite a 2025 Supreme Court ruling that recognized them as an Organized Group ‘A’ Service (OGAS).

Q2. How does the Bill affect the career of a native CAPF officer? The Bill creates a permanent “glass ceiling.” While cadre officers do the majority of field combat and border guarding, they are legally barred from ever heading their own forces. This leads to severe stagnation, where an Assistant Commandant might wait 16 years for a single promotion, while an IPS officer reaches the rank of DIG in the same timeframe.

Q3. Did the Supreme Court already rule on this matter? Yes. In May 2025 (Sanjay Prakash vs. Union of India), the Supreme Court recognized CAPFs as an Organized Service and directed the government to gradually reduce IPS deputation in senior ranks over two years. The CAPF Bill 2026 is seen by critics as a “legislative override” designed to bypass this judicial directive.

Q4. Why is there a comparison between the Ministry of Railways and Home Affairs? The Railway Protection Force (RPF), which falls under the Ministry of Railways, successfully implemented the Supreme Court’s OGAS directive. They renamed their cadre to IRPFS and ensured that all senior posts—except the DG—are manned by native officers. The Ministry of Home Affairs, however, has chosen a path of resistance by introducing the 2026 Bill.

Q5. What is the “Notwithstanding Clause” in the Bill? Section 3 of the Bill contains a “notwithstanding” clause, which means the provisions of the Act will apply regardless of any previous court judgments, rules, or precedents. This is the primary tool being used to nullify the 2025 Supreme Court ruling.