CAPF contempt case: Govt seeks special bench
The Supreme Court was informed by its Registry on Wednesday that a government law officer had mentioned contempt petitions concerning the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the listing of the matter before a special bench.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan was informed by the Registry that the matter was inadvertently listed on Tuesday and directions were received from CJI to list it before the special bench.
The matter was earlier listed before a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul Chandurkar on September 29, but got deleted from the list abruptly just before the hearing. The Justice Bhuyan-led bench then sought an explanation from the Registry for deleting from the cause list a batch of contempt petitions concerning the deputation of 46 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to five CAPFs, despite a judicial order directing that the matter be taken up at 2 pm on September 29.
When the matter was taken up by the Justice Misra-led bench on Wednesday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the court that she had mentioned the matter before the CJI.
The court remarked that Bhati should have informed the other side, those who have filed the contempt petitions, about the development. Bhati then conceded that it was a mistake and apologised before the Bench.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing in the court for one of the contempt petitioners, took strong objection to the fact that the matter was mentioned by the ASG ex-parte, without informing them.
"How do they mention behind our back? This is a question of institutional credibility. I want to ask, a matter which was listed, when we are waiting for it to come up, it suddenly gets plucked off the registry? And we are left off guard?" Divan submitted.
The Bench then observed, "They were taken by surprise. This information ought to have been given to the bench." Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, also appearing in the court for one of the contempt petitioners, refuted the ASG's submissions and said no such mentioning was made. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also apologised to the bench and said the contempt-of-court matter should be taken up along with the case in which the constitutional validity of a relevant law has been challenged.
The court then posted the contempt case for hearing on October 15, along with the petition challenging the validity of the law concerned.
The contempt proceedings have been initiated against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan over alleged non-compliance with the apex court's May 23, 2025, verdict in Sanjay Prakash and Others versus Union of India and Others.
The court had earlier sought an explanation from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding the deputation of the 46 IPS officers to the five CAPFs, despite its direction in the 2025 judgment to progressively reduce deputation posts in the CAPF cadres up to the Senior Administrative Grade level.
On September 2, the court had directed the MHA secretary to explain the procedure followed for bringing the IPS officers on deputation and why such deputations were made after the 2025 judgment.
The MHA and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) were also directed to place details on the steps taken to comply with the judgment. The proceedings assume significance in view of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.
