The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought to defuse a controversy over the abrupt deletion of contempt petitions concerning the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) from the cause list of a bench headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, with Justice Manoj Misra observing that “sometimes too much heat is generated out of nothing.”
The special bench was hearing an explanation from the registry on why the contempt matters, which had been judicially directed to be listed before Justice Bhuyan’s bench on September 30, were dropped from the cause list a day ago and were later placed before the special bench along with a separate batch challenging a new law governing IPS deputations in CAPFs. The controversy relates to the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment which declared the five Central Armed Police Forces — 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 bench, while accepting the registry’s explanation, said the registry ought to have informed the bench hearing the contempt petitions that the matters were likely to be listed before a bench to be constituted by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
The court order recorded that the registry had submitted a report explaining the circumstances in which the contempt petition was not loaded before the bench hearing it on Tuesday. The bench then agreed to advance the hearing of the two sets of cases and fixed them for October 15, instead of November 18. Divan added that a matter could not be suddenly struck off after being notified for hearing, stressing the importance of certainty in the Supreme Court’s cause list. “You cannot have a case struck off suddenly. This is an all-India court. People make arrangements.
It suggested that the parties exchange their pleadings so that both sets of matters could be heard together.
Once a case is notified in the cause list, nobody can fiddle with it,” he said. “It will be an exercise in futility if we go on with this, although you ought to have informed the bench hearing the contempt cases about the matter being mentioned before the CJI,” the bench said. Counsel representing the Centre in both the contempt and writ petitions had made a mention before the CJI seeking listing before one bench since one of the defences in the contempt petition was based on the legislation whose validity is under challenge in the writ proceedings, according to the report.
