The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of provisions in the Central Armed Police Forces Act that permit IPS officers to be deputed to CAPF on terms allegedly contrary to a prior Supreme Court judgment. Petitioners argue the statutory provision violates Article 14 by creating an arbitrary classification favouring IPS officers over directly recruited CAPF cadre officers, undermining the service rights and promotional prospects of the latter.

This challenge sits at the intersection of service law, constitutional equality, and institutional hierarchy within India's security architecture. The Central Armed Police Forces — comprising BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, and SSB — have their own directly recruited officer cadre. However, IPS officers are routinely deputed to command positions within these forces under statutory authority. The petitioners contend that a Supreme Court judgment had already ruled on the limits of such deputation, and the CAPF Act provision effectively nullifies that ruling by providing fresh statutory cover — raising the doctrine of 'legislative overruling of judicial decisions.' Article 14 is invoked because the classification enabling IPS deputation, without corresponding benefit to CAPF cadre officers, lacks a rational nexus to any legitimate state objective. The constitutional doctrine tested here is the equality code under Article 14: that any classification must satisfy the twin test — intelligible differentia plus rational nexus to the object of the legislation. Beyond Article 14, this case raises a structural constitutional question: can Parliament enact a law whose direct purpose is to circumvent a binding Supreme Court judgment? This implicates the separation of powers and the rule of law under Article 141, which makes Supreme Court judgments binding on all courts and authorities. For CLAT PG aspirants, this is a passage-ready fact pattern combining Art 14 equality, service law, and legislative competence to override judicial rulings.