Can Parliament legislatively override a Supreme Court judgment? Discuss with reference to the CAPF (General Administration) Act, 2026.

Article 141 makes the Supreme Court's declared law binding, while Articles 245–246 vest plenary law-making power in Parliament [4]. The settled position is that a legislature may remove the basis of a judgment but cannot directly nullify it — a distinction now squarely tested by the CAPF (General Administration) Act, 2026.

The permissible route: validating legislation

• Parliament cannot declare a verdict void; that is judicial power, and its usurpation offends separation of powers.
• It may, however, retrospectively alter the legal foundation on which a ruling rested — amending the statute or rules the Court interpreted — so the ruling no longer governs.
• The test is functional: does the new law cure the defect, or merely command a different result in the same dispute?

The 2026 Act against this test

• In Sanjay Prakash v. Union of India (23 May 2025) the Court treated CAPF Group A executive officers as an organised Group A service, ordered a cadre review within six months, and directed progressive reduction of IPS deputation up to IG rank within two years [2].
• The Act, passed by Parliament in April 2026, instead prescribes deputation floors — 50% of Inspector-General posts, a minimum of 67% of Additional DG posts, and all DG/Special DG posts — for IPS officers [1].
• Its rule-making clause operates "notwithstanding any other law, any judgement or order of any Court" [1] — language that reads as displacing the verdict rather than changing its basis.

Competing considerations

• For the Centre: cadre policy for the five CAPFs is a legislative-executive domain under the MHA [3]; a valid law creates a new legal position prospectively.
• Against: the Act faces constitutional challenge alongside contempt proceedings for non-implementation [5], and continued cadre stagnation dents the morale of forces central to border and internal security.

Parliament's power is to change the law, not to reverse a decision. The Act's fate will turn on whether it cures a legal basis or defies a judicial mandamus. A time-bound cadre review, paired with a calibrated deputation policy, would reconcile institutional balance with force effectiveness — honouring both separation of powers and security preparedness.