Supreme Court Special Bench Criticises Manner Of CAPF Contempt Case Listing; Centre Says Request Was Made Before CJI

The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the manner in which contempt petitions concerning the deputation of IPS officers to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were removed from the cause list of a regular bench and subsequently listed before a special bench.

The matter was taken up by a special bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan after the contempt petitions were abruptly deleted from the cause list of the bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice AS Chandurkar on Tuesday. The petitions concern the alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court's May 25 judgment for progressive reduction and eventual phasing out of IPS deputation posts in CAPF cadres.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, objected to the manner in which the matter had been listed before the special bench, saying no notice had been given to them about the request for listing the matter before another bench.

The bench perused a report submitted by the Registry explaining why the matter was not listed before the bench hearing the contempt petition on Tuesday. The report stated that counsel representing the respondents (Centre) in both the contempt and writ petitions (challenging the CAPF Act) had mentioned the matters before the CJI for listing them before one bench, since one of the defences in the contempt proceedings involved the Act whose vires had been challenged in the connected writ petitions. For context, the contempt petitions were before the bench of Justice Bhuyan (who authored the May 2025 judgment), and the writ petitions before Justice Misra's bench.

Divan questioned the procedure, saying, "You cannot have a listed matter plucked off the board. This is an all India court. People make travel arrangements and come here from all over the country. Once it's listed why should it be removed?"

Justice Misra observed that the judges too had been informed only late on Tuesday night, at around 9 pm, that the special bench had been constituted.

Divan said the Registry could have remained present to explain the development and argued that a publicly notified matter should be taken up as listed.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, also appearing for the petitioners, said that no request for listing with the writ petitions had been made when the contempt petition was heard on September 22 and that there had been no such indication on Tuesday either.

The bench asked whether it was not a fact that the Act constituted the defence in the contempt proceedings.

Divan disputed this, saying the contempt relates to compliance with orders independent of the Act.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati explained that she had made the request for the matters to be heard together. She said that on September 22, when the contempt petition was being heard, the Centre's principal defence was the Act and she had therefore requested that both batches be heard together. She said that when the bench indicated that the matters could not be heard together, she subsequently mentioned the matter before the CJI seeking that the two batches be taken up together.

The bench told Bhati that the petitioners ought to have been informed about the request.

"They were taken by surprise. This information ought to have been given to the bench," Justice Misra observed.

Bhati apologised, saying, "I apologise. It is my mistake."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also subsequently apologised during the hearing.

The bench observed that the matters had now been clubbed and indicated that whether the Act had removed the basis of the earlier judgment or overridden its directions would be considered separately.

The court noted that the returnable date in the connected writ petitions was November 18, 2026, and proposed that the parties exchange their pleadings by then.

Divan, however, urged the court to take up the contempt petition independently without waiting for the writ petitions.

"I want to press the contempt case," he said. "If it is their defence then your lordships may pass an appropriate order in the contempt. There were specifically time-bound directions issued that had nothing to do with the Act. We do not want our contempt to be linked to the writ petition."

Mehta opposed the request, submitting that the contempt proceedings could not be divorced from the writ petitions and that both matters should be heard together. He said the Centre would file its affidavits in both matters.

Divan submitted that the petitioners would demonstrate that the contempt proceedings raised issues independent of the writ petitions.

Divan then pointed to the specific directions which, according to him, were independent of the Act. He said the cadre review was required to be carried out within six months from the date of the judgment, which was delivered on May 23, 2025.

"This has nothing to do with the Act," Divan submitted.

Mehta requested that the matter be taken up the following week, saying the Centre needed time

Mehta submitted that the Centre deserved some time to prepare and assist the court.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the respondents, submitted that it would be necessary to examine how the Act had superseded the earlier directions and that the issue could not be decided in their absence.

The bench said it would consider whether there were any directions in the judgment independent of the Act and whether those directions had been complied with. It noted that the time limits stipulated in the earlier directions had already expired.

Kumar submitted that deputation was the "square issue" in the contempt proceedings and alleged that three more deputations had been made after September 22. He urged the respondents to "hold their hands" in the meantime.

Dwivedi responded that the Act permitted deputation.

The bench clarified that the matter was being fixed for October 15 specifically to determine whether the directions in question were independent of the Act and, if so, whether those directions had been complied with.

Mehta reiterated that the Act provided for deputation and that the question of deputation would therefore arise in the proceedings.

Divan urged the respondents to comply with the earlier directions before the next date.

In its order, the bench recorded the Registry's explanation that the matter had not been loaded before the bench hearing the contempt petition on September 29 and noted that, according to the Registry's report, counsel for the respondents in both the contempt and writ petitions had mentioned the matters before the CJI for listing them before one bench.

The court also recorded the petitioners' submission that several directions forming the basis of the contempt proceedings could not be covered by the Act whose vires were under challenge and that the contempt hearing therefore should not be deferred until the returnable date of the writ petition.

The bench directed that the matter be listed on October 15 at 2 pm along with the writ petitions. The court further directed that the explanation furnished by the Registry regarding the listing issue be kept in a sealed cover.

Case : Mahendra Singh Deo v Govind Mohan and others | CONMT.PET.(C) No. 37/2026 in C.A. No. 13106/2024.