The Supreme Court’s decision to club contempt petitions concerning deputation of IPS officers to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) with a separate batch challenging a new law governing such deputation was not an exercise of the Chief Justice of India’s roster powers without the knowledge of the judges concerned, people aware of the matter told HT Published on: Oct 2, 2026, 07:43:10 IST By Utkarsh Anand, New Delhi Prefer HTon Google Share via Copy link The Supreme Court’s decision to club contempt petitions concerning deputation of IPS officers to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) with a separate batch challenging a new law governing such deputation was not an exercise of the Chief Justice of India’s roster powers without the knowledge of the judges concerned, people aware of the matter told HT.
India News According to the people cited above, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had spoken to the judges concerned about listing the two sets of proceedings together, and the two judges heading the respective benches had agreed to go along with the CJI’s discretion since some of the issues in the matters could overlap after Parliament enacted a new law governing IPS deputation in the CAPFs.
The problem arose subsequently at the registry level, when the contempt petitions continued to be shown in the cause list before the bench headed by justice Ujjal Bhuyan on September 29, despite the decision to place both sets of proceedings before a special bench.
The matters were subsequently dropped from the list, but the bench hearing the contempt proceedings was not properly informed of the change, the people said.
The development assumes significance in the backdrop of the controversy that erupted earlier this week over the sudden disappearance of the contempt petitions from justice Bhuyan’s cause list, prompting questions about whether the CJI had exercised his administrative powers to shift the matters without consulting the judges hearing them.
The clarification from people familiar with the sequence of events indicates that the judges concerned were informed of the proposed joint listing last week itself and that the two judges heading the benches had left it to the CJI to decide.
The issue came into the open on Tuesday when lawyers appearing in the contempt petitions informed the justice Bhuyan-led bench that the matters, which had been specifically directed to be listed, had disappeared from the cause list.
The bench sought an explanation from the registry.
On Wednesday, a special bench of justices Manoj Misra and Bhuyan heard the registry’s explanation and remarked that “sometimes too much heat is generated out of nothing”.
The bench was told that counsel for the Centre and the petitioners in the writ proceedings had made a mentioning before the CJI on September 23 seeking that the contempt and writ petitions be placed before the same bench.
The registry, however, inadvertently listed the contempt matters before justice Bhuyan’s bench on September 29 even though the CJI had directed that the two sets of cases be placed before a special bench.
Even as the registry’s note did not annex any administrative order passed in relation to the proposed joint listing of the two sets of proceedings, the special bench said the registry ought to have informed the bench hearing the contempt proceedings about the development.
“The registry should have informed this fact to the other bench,” it said.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the contempt petitioners, described the episode as a matter of “institutional credibility”, questioning how the matter could have been mentioned before the CJI without the other side being informed.
Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati clarified that she had made the mentioning before the CJI and said the Centre’s principal defence in the contempt proceedings was based on the enactment of the new law, whose validity is under challenge in the connected writ petitions.
The bench told her that the other side ought to have been informed.
“You ought to have informed the other side,” it said.
“I ought to have informed the other side,” agreed Bhati, tendering her apology.
The controversy had centred on whether the contempt proceedings, arising from alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s May 2025 directions on IPS deputation to CAPFs, should proceed independently or be heard alongside challenges to the subsequent legislation enacted by Parliament on the same subject.
The petitioners had maintained that several directions in the May 2025 judgment were independent of the new legislation and that contempt proceedings should not necessarily await adjudication of its validity.
The Centre, however, argued that the new law formed a central part of its defence and that the two sets of proceedings were therefore closely intertwined.
The special bench ultimately advanced the hearing of both sets of cases to October 15 from November 18, recording that one of the Centre’s defences in the contempt proceedings was based on the legislation whose validity is under challenge in the writ petitions.
The May 2025 judgment had declared the BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB as an Organised Group A service and directed the Centre to progressively phase out IPS officers on deputation up to the Senior Administrative Grade level within a prescribed timeline.
The subsequent Central Armed Police Force (General Administration) Act, 2026, however, reserves 50% of Inspector General posts, about 67% of Additional Director General posts and almost all Special DG and DG posts in the CAPFs for IPS officers.
The legislation has been challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that it is contrary to the earlier judgment.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Utkarsh Anand Utkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry.
He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy.
His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments.
He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact.
Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses.
His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award.
As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms.
