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.
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 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 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 matters were subsequently dropped from the list, but the bench hearing the contempt proceedings was not properly informed of the change, the people said. 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.
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 legislation has been challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that it is contrary to the earlier judgment.
