SC Objects To Shift Of CAPF Contempt Pleas

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took exception to the removal of contempt petitions concerning the deputation of IPS officers to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) from a regular bench’s cause list shortly before the scheduled hearing and their subsequent listing before a special bench.

The Registry informed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan that a government law officer had mentioned the petitions before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to seek their listing before a special bench.

The Registry said the matter had been inadvertently listed on Tuesday and that directions had been received from the CJI to list it before the special bench.

The petitions had earlier been listed before Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Chandurkar on September 29 but were abruptly deleted from the cause list before the hearing.

That bench sought an explanation from the Registry, noting that a judicial order had directed that the petitions concerning the deputation of 46 IPS officers to five CAPFs be taken up at 2 pm on September 29.

When the matter came before the Justice Misra-led bench on Wednesday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said she had mentioned it before the CJI.

The court said she should have informed the contempt petitioners about the development. Ms Bhati acknowledged the mistake and apologised to the bench.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the petitioners, objected to the matter being mentioned without informing the other side.

“How do they mention behind our backs? 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 court observed: “They were taken by surprise. This information ought to have been given to the bench.”

Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, also appearing for a contempt petitioner, disputed the ASG’s submission and said no such mentioning had taken place.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also apologised and submitted that the contempt matter should be heard along with the petition challenging the constitutional validity of the relevant law.

The court posted the contempt petitions for October 15, along with the challenge to the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.

Enacted after the Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict directing a progressive reduction in IPS deputation to CAPFs, the Act provides for 50 per cent of Inspector General posts and at least 67 per cent of Additional Director General posts to be filled through IPS deputation. It also provides for the posts of Special Director General and Director General to be filled through deputation.

The contempt proceedings were initiated against Union home secretary Govind Mohan over alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025, judgment in Sanjay Prakash and Others versus Union of India and Others.

The court had earlier sought an explanation from the Ministry of Home Affairs over the deputation of 46 IPS officers to five CAPFs despite its direction to progressively reduce deputation posts in CAPF cadres up to the Senior Administrative Grade level.

On September 2, it directed the Union home secretary to explain the procedure followed for the deputations and why they were made after the 2025 judgment. The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Personnel and Training were also directed to provide details of steps taken to comply with the judgment.

The court has separately issued notice to the Centre on the petition challenging the 2026 law.