1 hr ago
Supreme Court Questions Shift Of CAPF Contempt Pleas
The Supreme Court was hearing a disagreement about police officers being sent to Central Armed Police Forces.
A group of people had filed contempt cases, saying the government may not have followed an earlier court order.
Their cases were unexpectedly removed from the hearing list and sent to a special bench.
The court said the petitioners should have been told about this change.
A government lawyer apologized for not informing them.
Another lawyer questioned whether the matter had been properly mentioned at all.
The court will hear the contempt cases on October 15.
It will hear them together with a challenge to a 2026 law about IPS deputation.
That law sets aside many senior CAPF posts for officers deputed from the IPS.
The Supreme Court objected to contempt petitions being removed from a regular bench’s cause list and shifted to a special bench.
The Registry said the petitions were mentioned before Chief Justice Surya Kant by a government law officer.
The petitions concern the deputation of 46 IPS officers to five Central Armed Police Forces.
The court said the contempt petitioners should have been informed before the matter was mentioned.
The petitions were posted for October 15 alongside a challenge to the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, government law officers, and petitioners challenging alleged non-compliance involving IPS deputations.
- What
- The court questioned why contempt petitions were removed from a regular bench’s cause list and listed before a special bench.
- Where
- The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of India.
- When
- The issue came before the court on Wednesday; the petitions were posted for October 15.
- Why
- The petitions allege that the Union government did not comply with the Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 judgment on reducing IPS deputation to CAPFs.
Petitioners’ Concerns
Government’s Position
Removal from the cause list
Petitioners’ Concerns
The petitioners objected that the matter was removed without notice while they were waiting for the scheduled hearing, raising concerns about institutional credibility.
Government’s Position
The Registry said the matter had been listed inadvertently and that directions were received from the Chief Justice to place it before a special bench.
How the matter was mentioned
Petitioners’ Concerns
Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar disputed the Additional Solicitor General’s account that the matter had been mentioned before the Chief Justice.
Government’s Position
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said she had mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apologized and supported hearing it with the challenge to the 2026 law.
Compliance with the 2025 judgment
Petitioners’ Concerns
The petitioners allege that the deputation of 46 IPS officers breached the court’s direction to progressively reduce deputation posts in CAPF cadres.
Government’s Position
The government is seeking to defend or apply the current legal framework, including the 2026 Act, which sets specified CAPF posts aside for IPS deputation.
Key facts
- Petitions involved
- Contempt petitions concerning the deputation of 46 IPS officers to five CAPFs.
- Earlier listing
- The petitions had been listed before Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Chandurkar on September 29.
- New hearing date
- The petitions were posted for October 15.
- Related law
- The hearing will take place alongside a challenge to the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.
- Contempt respondent
- The proceedings were initiated against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan.
- Government law
- The 2026 Act provides for 50% of Inspector General posts and at least 67% of Additional Director General posts to be filled through IPS deputation.
- Earlier judgment
- The contempt proceedings relate to the Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 judgment in Sanjay Prakash and Others versus Union of India and Others.
Quotes
Supreme Court
The bench hearing the contempt petitions
“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?”
deccanchronicle.com
“They were taken by surprise. This information ought to have been given to the bench.”
deccanchronicle.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Questions IPS Deputation for CAPF Leadership Positions
Supreme Court Rebukes Maharashtra Official in Contempt Proceedings
Bombay High Court Issues Contempt Notice Over Law Secretary Outburst
Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Arrest Warrants in Contempt Case
Delhi High Court Initiates Contempt Case Against Tihar Superintendent
Advocate Seeks Contempt Proceedings Against CEC Over ECI Decisions
Supreme Court to Hear Moitra’s Circuit House Eviction Plea
Gujarat High Court Upholds Privacy Over Modi Degree Disclosure
Bengal government challenges Milan Pradhan’s interim bail in Supreme Court
Centre Backs Supreme Court Move to Bar Minors Online
