Can a legislative enactment override a Supreme Court judgment on service conditions? Examine with reference to the CAPF cadre deputation controversy.

Article 309 makes recruitment and conditions of service a legislative field [3]; yet settled doctrine is that a legislature may remove the basis of a judgment but cannot directly nullify it. The CAPF (General Administration) Act, 2026, enacted after the Supreme Court's May 2025 CAPF ruling, tests exactly this line.

Where legislative action is valid

• The 2025 verdict (2025 INSC 779) held CAPF Group A executive officers to be an organised Group A service, ordered a cadre review in six months and progressive reduction of IPS deputation up to IG level in two years — a reading of existing service rules, not an unalterable constitutional right [1].
• Parliament may therefore alter the statutory foundation prospectively. The 2026 Act consolidates CAPF administration and fixes deputation quotas — 50% of IG posts, minimum 67% of ADG posts and all DG/Special DG posts for IPS officers [2].
• Competence is real: the Act was passed by both Houses in April 2026 within the Union's list on central services [2].

Where it crosses the line

• The Act empowers rule-making "notwithstanding any judgement or order of any Court" [2]. A clause aimed at court orders as such, rather than at changing the underlying law, is a bare legislative overruling and offends separation of powers.
• Re-enacting what was faulted, without curing the defect, remains open to review — reaffirmed in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2025) [4].
• Directions already binding inter partes survive: the Court continues monitoring compliance, directing the Union Home Secretary to file an affidavit explaining continued IPS postings (September 2026) [5].
• Governance-wise, the cadre review pending since 2021 and stifled promotional avenues for in-house cadres remain unaddressed by quota-fixing [1].

A law can lawfully reshape service conditions, but not annul a verdict by fiat. The durable solution lies in completing the cadre review, a time-bound DoPT decision and consultative, phased quotas — reconciling operational needs with judicial directions in the cooperative spirit the Constitution expects of its organs.