‘Filed review plea against SC verdict to reduce IPS deputation in CAPFs', Govt. informs Lok Sabha
Responding to a question by Deepender Hooda (Congress) whether the Supreme Court, in its May 23, 2025 judgment ruled in favour of granting Organized Group A Services (OGAS) status to CAPFs and if so, concrete steps had been taken to implement this order, Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai said, 'The Government of India has filed a petition seeking review of the judgment which is presently sub-judice and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.'
The Hindu reported on May 23 that a Bench of Justices A.S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the deputation posts of IPS officers in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) or up to the rank of Inspector General in CAPFs should be 'progressively reduced over a period of time, say within an outer limit of two years.' Justice Oka has since retired.
Despite the ruling, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) continued to appoint IPS officers to senior posts and since the day of the judgment, at least eight appointments of IPS officers in the rank of Commandant to Inspector Generals in the CAPFs were made.
The Congress member also asked whether the government considered Border Security Force (BSF) as a civilian force rather than an armed force of the Union despite its combat roles and the steps taken by the government to restore the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to these personnel, which was withdrawn since 2004.
The Minister replied, 'BSF is one of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) for ensuring the security of the borders of India. The issue is presently sub-judice and pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
40 minutes ago
- Economic Times
"BJP is adding and cutting votes fraudulently," Pawan Khera continues attack on BJP over alleged 'vote theft'
Synopsis The Congress party intensifies its accusations against the BJP, alleging voter list manipulation through fraudulent additions and removals. Pawan Khera highlights the significance of the SIR process in Bihar, which exposed irregularities necessitating Supreme Court intervention. ANI "BJP is adding and cutting votes fraudulently," Pawan Khera continues attack on BJP over alleged 'vote theft' New Delhi: The Congress party continued its attack on the BJP over alleged 'vote theft' on Saturday, with senior leader Pawan Khera accusing the ruling party of tampering with the voter list by fraudulently adding and removing said that if the SIR process hadn't begun in Bihar, many irregularities in the voter list would have remained hidden. He added that the situation became so serious that even the Supreme Court had to step in, and the Election Commission was forced to accept the Congress party's demands. Speaking at the press conference, Pawan Khera said, "Yesterday we celebrated our 79th Independence Day, and tomorrow, on 17th August, we will start our Vote Adhikar Yatra in Bihar. It is possible to breathe freely in independent India because it is possible to vote. If we cannot vote, we will not be able to breathe freely in independent India. This is why Rahul Gandhi has started this struggle." He praised the people of Bihar, the Congress, and the INDIA alliance for raising their voices against the alleged conspiracy. "The way the BJP is adding and cutting votes fraudulently, they have been caught with their very hands. If SIR had not been started in Bihar, perhaps many things would not have come to light. The situation reached such a stage that even the Supreme Court had to intervene, and the Election Commission had to accept our demands... The people of Bihar, the Congress Party, and the INDIA alliance raised their voices against the conspiracy that was being hatched," he in the day, Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, shared a spoof video inspired by the film Laapataa Ladies, reiterating the Congress's "vote theft" allegations against the Election Commission and urging people to join the 'Vote Chori se Azaadi' the video on X, Rahul Gandhi wrote, "Chori chori, chupke chupke... ab or nahi, janta jag gayi hai, (Secretly, stealthily... No more now, the public has awakened)."The video shows a middle-aged man at a police station submitting a theft complaint. When asked by a policeman, "What has been stolen?" the man hesitates before replying, "Vote." The policeman reacts in shock and asks, "How's this possible?" The video ends with the message, "Theft of your vote is theft of your right." The clip is based on a scene in Laapataa Ladies where a husband goes to the police station to report that his wife has been exchanged. (ANI)
The Hindu
41 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Governors are not aliens, but checks on States' ‘hasty legislation': Centre to Supreme Court
The Union government has said the Supreme Court cannot treat Governors as 'aliens' or 'foreigners' on whom timelines can be imposed and whose discretion do not count. The submission by the Centre, made in a note authored by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, is part of the record in a Presidential Reference hearing scheduled before a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai from August 19. The Presidential Reference stems from an April 8 judgment pronounced by a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which had challenged Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in clearing 10 re-passed Bills and his subsequent action to reserve them for consideration by the President. The two-judge Bench had thrust a three-month deadline on State Governors and the President to deal with State Bills sent to them for approval or consideration, respectively. It had concluded that Governors enjoyed no discretion while dealing with these Bills, and were totally bound by the 'aid and advice' of the State Legislature concerned. The Division Bench had even invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant 'deemed assent' to 'delayed' State Bills. The April 8 judgment had further directed that the President must seek advice from the Supreme Court under Article 143 (advisory jurisdiction) in case of any vexing State Bills. The written submissions of Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocate P. Wilson, countered that the Presidential Reference mechanism cannot be used to reopen or nullify binding judgments of the apex court itself. Questions on the powers of the President and the Governors as regards State Bills have already been settled by the April 8 judgment. Entertaining the Reference now would erode the finality attached to Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution. Tamil Nadu submitted the court was not bound to answer every Presidential Reference made to it But Mr. Mehta maintained the April judgment of the court had clearly trenched upon a zone exclusive to the President and the Governors. 'Governors are not to be treated as alien/foreigner in the federating units of the Union. Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre. The Governors possess democratic legitimacy through indirect democratic representation. Governors are appointed by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers… Governors are constitutional actors,' Mr. Mehta submitted. The law officer argued the nature of gubernatorial assent has a unique duality of character. Though the assent is given by an apex Executive authority, the act itself is legislative in nature. The Supreme Court's approach ought to have been more calibrated. The Centre's law officer submitted that neither Article 200 (Governor's power to assent to State Bills) nor Article 201 (President's power to consider State Bills referred to her by the Governor for consideration) provided any specific time limit. 'The absence of any express time limit in Articles 200 and 201 is a deliberate and conscious constitutional choice. The judicial direction of imposition of any timeline would amount to an amendment to the Constitution,' Mr. Mehta emphasised. The note asked if the court could invoke Article 142 and assume powers under Article 200 and 201 to grant deemed assent to 'delayed' State Bills. 'The alleged failure, inaction, or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head,' Mr. Mehta put forth. The Centre said a Governor was not a mere post office, but a check on 'hasty legislation' by the States. A Governor was not precluded from exercising discretion under Article 200 to grant assent, withhold assent, reserve a Bill for the President's consideration or return the same to the Legislative Assembly, even in the absence of aid and advice to that effect. 'The Governor's assent cannot be a mechanical process… Situations may arise where the Governor may need to take a view independently of the Council of Ministers,' Mr. Mehta argued. Moreover, the Union government said directing the President to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 in case of any doubts about State Bills would effectively turn a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate. 'An absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term 'consult' means the President is not bound to do so,' Mr. Mehta submitted.
Scroll.in
41 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
‘Theatrics': Opposition criticises Omar Abdullah for signature campaign seeking J&K statehood
Opposition parties in Jammu and Kashmir on Friday described Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's announcement of launching a signature campaign to seek statehood for the Union Territory as ' theatrics ' and a ' token gesture '. Abdullah said during his speech on the occasion of Independence Day that his hope for statehood being restored to Jammu and Kashmir was fading. The chief minister announced that over the coming eight weeks, he and his team would go door to door across all 90 Assembly constituencies to collect signatures in support of restoring statehood. These signatures will be presented before the Supreme Court, he said. Peoples Democratic Party leader Waheed Para said Abdullah 'owes an apology, not a signature campaign', accusing the chief minister of reducing the fight for statehood to tokenism. 'The people gave him a historic mandate to fight for Article 370 and statehood, not to stage political theatre,' Para said in a social media post. He also accused Abdullah of betraying the commitment he made in the run-up to the Assembly elections. 'If he has already surrendered, he must admit it and apologise to every citizen of J&K for selling promises he never intended to keep,' Para added. Omar Abdullah owes an apology not a signature campaign for normalising 5th August. With 50 MLAs behind him, he has reduced the fight for J&K's statehood to token gestures, after seeking votes door-to-door on the promise of restoring pre–5th August status. This is not just… — Waheed Para (@parawahid) August 15, 2025 Peoples Conference president Sajad Lone also criticised Abdullah, questioning why the chief minister was avoiding bringing a resolution in the Assembly, which would carry 'constitutional dignity'. 'Signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity,' Lone said. 'Name one event empirically in India or in the rest of the world where signature campaigns have altered legal interpretations. They are not even admissible. Assembly resolutions reflect the will of the people unambiguously.' We will support any movement towards statehood. But please don't make a mockery of statehood. We are already reeling under the impact of a 'Tom Dick and Harry' approaching the Supreme court. Let us approach the Supreme Court as a constitutional entity not as another 'Tom Dick… — Sajad Lone (@sajadlone) August 15, 2025 Abdullah claimed on Friday that he was told 'something big for Jammu and Kashmir will be announced from Delhi on Independence Day'. 'I was even told that papers were being prepared [for statehood],' said the chief minister. 'We waited, but nothing happened.' Statehood for Jammu and Kashmir The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre had abrogated Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state, in August 2019. It also bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. In December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2019 order abrogating Article 370 and ordered the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. In January, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said that he wanted to give the Centre the 'first opportunity' to restore the Union Territory's statehood before seeking legal recourse. The National Conference leader told reporters that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had himself committed to restoring the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir. 'Every government or every individual has recourse to courts,' Omar Abdullah said. 'But that was never going to be our first option.'
