Supreme Court Questions Sudden Transfer of CAPF Contempt Pleas to Special Bench

The Supreme Court examined why contempt petitions alleging noncompliance with its directions on IPS officers’ deputation to the Central Armed Police Forces were removed from a regular bench’s cause list and placed before a special bench alongside challenges to the governing law. The Registry said lawyers had asked the Chief Justice of India to hear the contempt and writ cases together because the new law formed part of the Centre’s defense, but the petitions were inadvertently listed before another bench; the justices said that bench should have been informed, and government lawyers apologized. Petitioners argued that parts of the contempt case—including directions in a 2025 judgment and a deadline for cadre review—were independent of the law and should proceed separately, while the Centre argued the law’s effect must be considered. The court directed that the contempt matter be heard with the related writ petitions and kept the Registry’s explanation under seal.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan called the episode a matter of “institutional credibility” and objected that the listing change had been made without informing the other side. He also said abruptly removing a scheduled case could disrupt travel plans for litigants coming from outside Delhi.
Senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar alleged that three additional deputations had been made after September 22 and urged the court to take that development into account.
Justice Manoj Misra sought to defuse the dispute, remarking that “sometimes too much heat is generated out of nothing.”
The Registry’s account traced the request to a September 23 mentioning before the Chief Justice of India; the contempt matters were subsequently listed before Justice Bhuyan’s bench by mistake despite the direction for the matters to go before a special bench.
Publishers
15
Articles
6
Reach
21