Working Conditions in Non-Border Guarding Central Armed Police Forces

Standing Committee Report Summary 

  • The Standing Committee on Home Affairs (Chairperson: Mr. P. Chidambaram) submitted its report on ‘Working Conditions in Non-Border Guarding Central Armed Police Forces’ on December 12, 2018. These forces include the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, which provides security for key installations), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF, which is deployed for maintaining internal security), and the National Security Guard (NSG, which is deployed for anti-terrorist activities).  Key observations and recommendations of the Committee include:

CISF

  • Cadre review: The Committee noted severe stagnation at various ranks of Group B and C personnel of the CISF, due to lack of cadre review.  These include ranks such as constable, head constable, and sub-inspector.  For example, a constable gets promoted to head constable in 22 years, as against the eligibility period of five years.  The Committee stated that lack of cadre review is a demoralising factor for CISF personnel.  In this context, it recommended that cadre review of Group B and C personnel must be expedited., so that lower ranks get their first promotion within ten years of recruitment.  
     
  • Modernization: The CISF is responsible for the security of airports, and installations in the nuclear and aerospace domain.  The Committee stated that modern equipment such as drones, night vision devices, and patrolling equipment should be provided to the CISF.  Further, the Committee noted that CISF does not have dedicated Bomb Detection and Disposal Squads (BDDS).  It recommended that all 59 airports guarded by the CISF must have operational BDDS teams.

CRPF

  • Vacancies: The Committee questioned the rationale for reserving 37 posts for IPS officers in the CRPF, when they were not opting for such posts.  These posts remained vacant or were temporarily diverted to cadre officers of the CRPF.  The Committee recommended that not more than 25% of posts should be reserved for IPS officers.  Further, the Committee observed that there were vacancies of around 55,000 constables in CRPF.  It recommended that recruitment should be conducted taken into account the anticipated vacancies for the next two years.
     
  • Deployment: The Committee observed that states are over-dependent on the CRPF for maintaining various law and order situations.  The continuous deployment of training companies affects the operational efficiency of the CRPF, as well as denies them training and rest.  The Committee recommended that at any given time, one-sixth of a battalion should be mandatorily given training or rest.
     
  • Research and development: The Committee observed that CRPF does not have a dedicated research and development (R&D) wing of its own.  It recommended that due to the unique issues faced by the CRPF, such as large size and areas of deployment, creation of a dedicated R&D unit of its own should be explored, to deal with issues peculiar to the CRPF such as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), and bullet proofing of vehicles. 

NSG 

  • Tenure: The Committee noted that NSG does not have its own cadre, and draws personnel from the Army, CAPFs, and other police organizations.  However, the period of deputation of Army personnel in the NSG is very short.  In this context, the Committee recommended that a working group should be formed to examine the pros and cons of a longer tenure for deputation.
     
  • Air wing: The Committee noted that the NSG does not have an air wing of its own, and is dependent on air assets of other forces.  Given that the NSG is supposed to provide swift counter-strike response, the Committee recommended that steps must be taken to commission a dedicated air wing for the NSG.         

 

DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information.  You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”).  The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s).  PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete.  PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group.  This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.