That the Union government chose, April 9, which is celebrated as “Shaurya Diwas” by the CRPF – India designated internal security force – to notify the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) (General Administrative) Act 2026 is fraught with irony.It is perhaps the continuing protests – both on the ground and across social media – by CAPF cadres against the injustice of this Act that have prompted Prime Minister Narendra Modi to convene a meeting of senior commanders from all armed police forces. One hopes this forum will include meaningful representation from CAPF cadre officers, rather than being limited to IPS officers occupying top positions. Only then can the prime minister gain first-hand insight into the festering problems within these organisations, which remain central to the country’s security architecture.Ideally, administrative reform is the remit of the executive, carried out through day-to-day orders and decisions by leadership at various levels within an organisation. The government’s role, insofar as administration is concerned, is largely to ensure the provision of adequate financial resources. An Act styled as one for “administrative reforms”, yet curtailing the exercise of delegated powers and discretion, is therefore unnecessary at the outset.Even if the government considered such legislation necessary for the CAPFs, it ought to have addressed the host of administrative deficiencies that directly affect their operational efficiency – something this Act notably fails to do.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.The Act effectively overturns a well-considered Supreme Court order and entrenches the existing system of reserving senior positions for IPS officers. In doing so, it extinguishes the aspirations of CAPF cadre officers who, after a 17-year legal struggle, had secured recognition as an organised service – something the government’s own instructions had envisaged as far back as 1986.The grant of full OGAS (Organised Group ‘A’ Service) status implied that cadre officers would be eligible for promotion to all posts up to the rank of Inspector General. It also entitled them to “Non-Functional Financial Upgradation” (NFFU), in line with the framework in place since 2009. The Supreme Court had observed that denying OGAS status to CAPF cadre officers amounted to an infringement of their fundamental rights. Its reasoning was also shaped by the fact that all other 57 Union government services had been extended full OGAS benefits, leaving no rational basis to exclude officers of these forces.That the government in its wisdom and without any consultations has decided to enact this Act in-spite of the unambiguous orders of the Supreme Court is inexplicable. The Act focuses only on protecting the hegemony of IPS officers at higher leadership levels. The CAPF (Administrative Reforms) 2026 thus not only contravenes the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court’s orders but overturns it totally by reverting to the same position that existed before the top court order in regard to reservation for IPS officers at the level of Inspector General and above. The only change that the Act makes is for the posts at the level of Additional DG where, in a clever use of words, the earlier reservation for IPS at 75% has been modified to state “not less than 67%”. The implication is that the government, if it wishes, can reserve 100% posts of Additional DG for IPS, and effectively deprive the CAPF Cadre officers of any post at the level of Additional DG, also besides the Special DG and DG which are already reserved for the IPS.It is a settled position in law that the legislature cannot overturn a court order. The Supreme Court in several cases has unequivocally ruled that the legislature can only cure defects forming the basis of the judgment through a valid amendment. Legislatures cannot directly overrule or set aside a binding court judgment, as this violates the doctrine of separation of powers. While it is for legal luminaries to analyse various provisions, on the face of it, the Act overturning the Supreme Court order appears to violate the settled constitutional provision as stated above. The Act also on the face of it violates the fundamental right of cadre officers to be considered for higher level positions.If one has seen the debate over the Act in parliament, it was clear that while those opposed to the Act focussed their arguments on the aspects of efficiency, and legal flaws in the bill, speakers favouring the bill focussed on aspects of the need for IPS officers at higher levels for coordination of operations and intelligence. They also spoke of the importance of inducting IPS officers in these forces on grounds that the IPS is an All India Service and their presence in these organisations is important for enhancing Union-state relations. It is worth pointing out that the arguments about coordination, intelligence as well as of the IPS being an All India Service were all argued by the government and IPS Association before the court, which had found them not relevant to the case of the litigant cadre officers. Advancing the same arguments to justify enactment of the Act therefore appears a little odd.It may also be seen that the Statement of Objectives of the bill presented in Parliament at no stage refers to national security as the objective of the Bill. It is therefore apparent that the Act aims only to protect the interests of IPS officers. That the government did not indulge in any consultative process with stakeholders or send the bill to a parliamentary committee again reinforces the objective – protecting the interests of IPS officers to the detriment of cadre officers of the CAPF.The Act displays an abject lack of confidence in the leadership that has grown from within and which has gained adequate expertise and operational insight into their own domains. It is difficult to understand why IPS officers – often lacking deep operational familiarity or sustained engagement with ground realities of these specialised forces – have been preferred over domain experts to occupy senior supervisory and leadership roles under this Act. These forces form the backbone of India’s security architecture, yet a demoralised cadre, coupled with imposed leadership insufficiently versed in their operational domain, represents a serious compromise to national security.Public debate on the matter is diverting the issue of national security and constitutional propriety by trying to project IPS officers as possessing superior intellect and coordinating ability. This narrative is far from the truth as is apparent from the fact that the IPS leadership which has been at the helm of affairs of these organisations since their formation has failed in resolving several festering issues of these forces. These include substandard and inadequate infrastructure, subhuman working conditions, long duty hours, and poor human resource management at all levels including officers, subordinate officers and also the constabulary. This is manifested in a large number of court cases as well as voluntary retirements in these forces whose policy level leadership consists solely of IPS officers, whose interests this Act apparently aims to protect as is discussed above.The Act is regressive and does little to enhance either the administrative or operational efficiency of these forces, which together number over a million personnel.Instead of addressing the double jeopardy of career stagnation and financial loss, the government, through this Act, is compelling cadre officers to embark on yet another prolonged legal battle.S.K. Sood is the former Additional Director General of the Border Security Force.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.