New Delhi: The government on Wednesday introduced the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 in the Rajya Sabha, brushing aside Opposition notices on its introduction through a voice vote.
The bill seeks to create a unified legal framework governing personnel across different CAPF forces, replacing the current patchwork of separate service rule regimes for the five Central Armed Police Forces.
Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai, who introduced the bill, sought to allay concerns about its scope.
“The CAPF does not influence or change the system of governance under Section 312,” he said, adding that the duties, powers and governance of the forces would remain intact under their existing mandates.
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju mounted a robust defence of Parliament’s legislative authority, taking direct aim at Opposition members who repeatedly invoked Supreme Court judgments to challenge the bill’s validity.
“How can we take away the legislative competence of this House?” he asked.
“Nearly a Supreme Court judgment is allowed publicly to the proposed legislation. I really don’t understand how honourable members are willingly giving up your own responsibility.” Rijiju reminded the Opposition that Parliament, empowered by the Constitution, held “absolute competence” to legislate – and that abdicating that responsibility was not an option.
The proceedings were not without friction. Deputy Chairman Harivansh initially declined to allow Opposition members to speak at length on their notices.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh pressed for a hearing of three to four minutes per member.
The Chair ultimately permitted each member one minute, citing longstanding precedents dating to 1947 that limit such interventions to a single opposing speaker.
Derek O’Brien of the Trinamool Congress used his minute pointedly – by staying silent. “Silence is my right. You cannot take away my right,” he said, calling the bill “anti-federal.”
Congress’s Ajay Maken cited six Supreme Court judgments in opposition and flagged the financial burden of implementation.
Vivek Tankha argued that the bill risked eroding constitutionally protected rights of nearly 13,000 service officers.
“Parliament can legislate. It cannot take away the basis of a constitutional right,” he said.
DMK’s Tiruchi Siva raised the sharpest structural concern – that the bill was designed to nullify Supreme Court rulings that had curtailed IPS deputation in paramilitary forces.
“Every time the Supreme Court gives a judgment, Parliament overrides it. The separation of powers becomes a big question,” he said.
CPI-M’s John Brittas echoed this, arguing the bill suffered from a “fundamental infirmity of legislative competence.”
