CAPF case listing fiasco: Supreme Court asks why original bench wasn't informed before matter was shifted

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took strong exception to the Registry abruptly delisting a case concerning Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) from a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul Chandurkar without informing the judges of the same.

The Court also took exception to the fact that the government law officer mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant without informing the other parties and got it abruptly deleted from the original bench and had it posted before another special bench.

The matter, which was heard today by a special bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, was earlier listed before a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul Chandurkar on Tuesday, September 29, before it got deleted from the list abruptly just before the hearing.

The bench had then sought an explanation from the registry for the same.

A notice appeared on the Supreme Court website later on Tuesday, stating that the matter was transferred to a special bench. This special bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan is seized of the pleas challenging the validity of a law that could have a bearing in the contempt case.

When the matter came up before the special bench today, the Court noted the explanation tendered by the Registry as per which the matter was abruptly deleted from the original bench. The Registry said that mentioning was earlier made by the government lawyer before the CJI to list the matter before the special bench which is examining the validity of the law on the same subject.

The Court read the Registry's explanation as follows:

"A mention was made to list the petitions before one bench. The matter was inadvertently listed on 29th. However, directions were received from CJI to list the matter before a special bench."

It was not impressed and said the Registry could have informed this fact to the bench.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the parties, also took strong objection to the fact that the matter was mentioned ex-parte.

"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?" he demanded.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati conceded that it was she who had made the mentioning and apologised for the same.

"The mention was made by me. On 22nd, when the contempt petition was being heard, our main defence was the Act. So I requested both to be heard together. Your lordships said it can’t be done. Then I mentioned before CJI for both batches to be taken together," Bhati said.

"You should have informed them that," the Bench replied.

"I apologise. It is my mistake," Bhati said.

"They were taken by surprise. This information ought to have been given to the bench," the Court reiterated.

Pertinently, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, also appearing for one of the parties, disputed the ASG's claim that she had asked Justice Bhuyan's bench for clubbing the contempt of court case and the case on validity of the law.

"On 22nd, no such request was made. They didn’t make any mention like this. Yesterday also they didn’t say anything like this," he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the government, apologised to the Bench. However, he maintained that 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.

"I also apologise. The contempt cannot be divorced from the writ petition. Let both be heard together. We will file our affidavit in both," he said.

"I will make out a case that it’s different," Divan replied.

"Don’t argue like this," Mehta said.

"What is the propriety? In one matter date was fixed. The other was fixed before another bench," the Bench maintained.

"We are not here to fight," the SG said.

The Court eventually posted the contempt case for hearing on October 15 along with the petition challenging the validity of the concerned law.

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

The contempt proceedings allege wilful disobedience of the top court's May 2025 judgment in Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India, wherein it had declared CAPFs as Organised Group 'A' Services (OGAS). The Court had also directed a progressive reduction and phasing out of IPS officers on deputation up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level within fixed timeframes to eliminate career stagnation for cadre officers.  

The contempt plea specifically targets Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan for continued IPS appointments despite these binding judicial mandates. In response to court orders demanding compliance affidavits, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) revealed that 46 IPS officers up to the SAG rank were inducted into CAPFs after the May 2025 ruling.

The legal confrontation intensified following the parliament enacting the Central Armed Police Force (General Administration) Act, 2026. Passed earlier this year, the statute codifies higher quotas for IPS deputations - reserving 50% of Inspector General (IG) posts, at least 67% of Additional Director General (ADG) posts, and 100% of Special DG and DG positions for IPS officers across the five primary CAPFs (BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP, and SSB).

The constitutional validity of the 2026 Act is currently under challenge before the top court in a separate petition.

The contempt petition was being heard by a bench of Justices Bhuyan and Chandurkar.

However, on September 29, this bench noted that the matter had been deleted from the afternoon roster during the lunch recess, despite standing judicial orders mandating its listing at 2:00 PM.

Hence, it passed an order seeking an explanation from the registry.

"The Court has been informed at 2 pm that the case has been struck off from the cause list during the lunch break. Since it is a judicial order to get the case listed today at 2 pm, we direct the listing of this case tomorrow again at 2 pm, along with the other connected matters, again tomorrow, i.e. on 30.09.2026, at 02:00 PM, with a note by the Registry, as to why the matter was struck off from the cause list despite there being a judicial order," the Bench directed in its order.

Later, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant constituted a different special bench comprising Justices Misra and Bhuyan to hear the contempt petitions on Wednesday, September 30.

The matter then came up today before the special bench when the sharp exchanges took place.

Both the contempt petition and the writ petitions challenging the validity of the Central Armed Police Force (General Administration) Act, 2026 will now be heard by the special bench of Justices Misra and Bhuyan.

[Read Live Coverage]