Delhi HC Seeks MHA, BSF Reply on PIL Alleging Misuse of CAPF Personnel for Domestic Work

The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Border Security Force (BSF) on a Public Interest Litigation filed by a serving BSF officer alleging that jawans and other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel were being deployed for household chores at the residences of senior officers, including taking care of pet dogs, in violation of rules and service norms.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on September 4, 2025, issued notice on the PIL moved by BSF Deputy Inspector General Sanjay Yadav, who alleged systemic misuse of manpower in the force.

The plea asserts that instead of being deployed for official duties such as border security, law and order, and counter-insurgency operations, a large number of CAPF personnel have been diverted to serve as orderlies, drivers, cooks, and domestic assistants at the homes of senior officers, including those who have retired.

According to the petition, such practice is not only arbitrary but also a serious misuse of public resources that adversely impacts national security.

It highlights that the CAPFs and Assam Rifles together face a shortfall of more than 83,000 personnel. In such circumstances, diverting serving soldiers to non-official tasks amounts to a double loss; weakening operational readiness while straining public finances.

The petitioner has relied upon a 2016 Office Memorandum (OM) of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), dated September 21, 2016, which categorically directed that all privileges such as staff, security, and vehicles attached to retired officials be withdrawn within one month of demitting office.

The OM further mandated recovery of costs in case of non-compliance. Despite this, the plea states, the BSF itself admitted to having identified 131 personnel posted at the residences of retired CAPF or police officers, but no corrective action was taken to either withdraw the personnel or recover the expenditure incurred.

The PIL thus seeks judicial intervention to ensure strict enforcement of the DoPT guidelines, withdrawal of all CAPF personnel from unauthorized domestic duties, and recovery of public funds wrongfully spent on such misuse.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that allowing soldiers to be used for such menial work demeans the dignity of the uniform and undermines the morale of the forces.

He submitted that this was not an isolated practice but a systemic issue that has persisted despite repeated complaints within the organization.

The counsel emphasized that national security considerations required the immediate redeployment of such diverted manpower to their rightful duties.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents raised objections to the maintainability of the PIL.

It was pointed out that the petitioner himself had earlier faced disciplinary proceedings on allegations of misuse of manpower, and therefore lacked the authority to approach the court. However, the petitioner’s counsel countered that personal allegations against the petitioner could not detract from the larger issue of institutional misuse, which was being raised in the public interest.

The Court, after hearing the preliminary submissions, observed that the allegations raised were of a serious nature and required a formal response from the authorities. Accordingly, the Bench issued notice to the MHA and the BSF, directing them to place on record their replies.

The petition brings to the fore a long-standing and controversial issue within the paramilitary forces, where allegations of misuse of orderlies and domestic assistance have repeatedly surfaced.

While successive governments and internal committees have emphasized the need to discontinue the practice, reports of misuse continue to emerge, raising concerns about accountability and institutional reform.

If substantiated, the allegations may compel the Court to order corrective measures, including disciplinary action against erring officers, withdrawal of unauthorized manpower, and systemic safeguards to prevent recurrence.

Case Title: Sanjay Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Date of Order: September 4, 2025