Dushyant Dave Writes : Shifting Of CAPF Contempt Case Raises Questions On Master Of Roster Powers

The master of the roster, the Chief Justice of India, has struck again – this time, to go beyond his recognised powers as such master and act in a manner which reflects an obstruction of Justice.

CJI Surya Kant purportedly passed an administrative order on September 29, constituting a special bench of Justices Manoj Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan to hear Contempt Petition 37/2026 in CA 13106/2024, on September 30.

By doing this, the CJI has directly interfered with a judicial order passed by the bench of Justices Bhuyan and Chandurkar on September 29 itself. In it, the judges had expressed surprise at the deletion of same case listed as item 32 in the Daily Cause List, pertaining to its earlier order of September 22, had directed matter to be listed on September 30 before them, with a note by the Registry to explain this deletion.

The case concerned the deputation of 46 Indian Police Service officers to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).

Many questions need to be raised and resolved.

How was a matter which had been listed as per a judicial order deleted? Was it because the CJI had so directed? If yes, then who moved the CJI? Did he act suo motu? Were parties heard or was only one side present? Was it perhaps done by the Registry on its own? In either case, the deletion was absolutely illegal, uncalled for and highly improper. Justice was clearly deflected in this exercise.

First and foremost, the CJI as master of the roster should have ordered an inquiry into it and corrected the course by ensuring that the matter is listed before the same bench.

In its judgment in Shanti Bhushan vs. Supreme Court of India, which had questioned the powers of the master of the roster, Justice Sikri while upholding powers of the master held:

“At the same time, power of the 'Chief Justice' does not extend to regulate the functioning of a particular Bench to decide cases assigned to him once the cases are allocated to that Bench. A Bench comprising of puisne judges exercise its judicial function without interference from others, including the Chief Justice as it is supposed to act according to law. Therefore, when a particular matter is assigned to a particular Bench, that Bench acquires the complete dominion over the case.”

Clearly, the CJI has committed clear and unequivocal violation of this law declared by the Supreme Court, which is law of the land and binds even the court itself.

Justice Bhushan, writing a separate but concurring judgement, did not disagree with this declaration of law. But he observed:

 “Thus, the faith of the people is the bedrock on which the edifice of judicial review and efficacy of the adjudication are founded. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons. is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary.”

Quoting Fali Nariman, he further observed:

“Institutions created by our Constitution, like the Supreme Court, are, and will always remain, greater than the men and women for the time being in charge.”

In Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India, the apex court had clearly hoped:

 “The ultimate purpose behind the entrustment of the authority to the Chief Justice is to ensure that the Supreme Court is able to fulfil and discharge the Constitutional obligations which govern and provide the rationale for its existence. The entrustment of the functions to the Chief Justice as the head of the institution, is with the purpose of securing the position of the Supreme Court as an independent safeguard for the preservation of personal liberty. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust. The oath of office demands nothing less.”

CJI Kant has dashed these pious hopes and has done something serious to negate that trust, defeat citizens' fundamental rights and negate the very rule of law that he is expected to uphold.

The act of ordering the constitution of a special bench by withdrawing a matter from an assigned bench – in violation of judicial orders – appears arbitrary and not in good faith. We will never know what prompted the CJI to take such a drastic illegal step so as to hurt the rights of 17,000 or so officers of the Central Armed Police Forces, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF), the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).

But one thing is clear. Despite many government orders, especially by the Department of Personnel, two direct judgements of the Supreme Court - one in February 2019 (accepted by the Department of Personnel and Training in the office memorandum of March 26, 2019), an order by the Union home ministry on July 4, 2019, and another judgement of May 2025, the Union government brought the CAPF (General Administration) Act, 2026. The law to overrode the judgements without actually removing their basis.

All this was done to ensure that Indian Police Service (IPS) officers get the higher administrative positions of Director General of Police or Special Director General of Police, Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to the extent of 100%, 67% and 50% respectively, by deputation, as they do not belong to these services.

This has blocked promotional avenues of thousands of officers who join these services to protect this country against external and internal enemies. Over the years, hundreds of these officers have died and thousands were seriously injured while on duty. IPS officers have hundreds of avenues for promotion in their respective state cadres and yet want to deprive brave officers of promotions for periods as long as 15 to 20 years. Often, these promotions may not even come.

Shockingly, Ministry of Railways too had accepted the same 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court and acted according to its terms, which benefitted the Railway Protection Force. So why would the Union government discriminate and go on the path of commuting the contempt of judgments of the Supreme Court?

What is so special about IPS officers that these hardened, experienced, and well-motivated officers do not have? Is it perhaps the fact that the government trusts IPS officers to deliver on occasions like elections, as per its wishes? We will never know. But grave injustice is being perpetrated on these brave officers of the CAPFs.

The CJI should have known all this. Maybe he knew and was therefore persuaded to act as he did. But let us hope and pray that it is not too late for the CJI to correct the course and restore people's faith in the Supreme Court. And one hopes that other honourable judges will introspect to correct the course, as such abuse has been rampant for the last few years to the knowledge of all, but equally, the silence of most.

One can only say in conclusion, may god save the Supreme Court of India.

Dushyant Dave is a Senior Advocate who has practised law for 48 years and was thrice president of the Supreme Court Bar Association of India.