A day after the CAPF contempt case vanished from the cause list, the Supreme Court learnt that it had been moved on a mention made to the Chief Justice without notice to the petitioners, drawing an apology from the Additional Solicitor General and a remark from the Bench that the information ought to have reached it.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 30, listed the contempt petitions filed by CAPF officers over the continued deputation of IPS officers to the paramilitary forces on October 15, together with the writ petitions challenging the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, to examine whether the directions in its May 2025 judgment operate independently of the new law [Mahendra Singh Deo and Others v. Govind Mohan and Others].
A Special Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also directed that the Registry’s explanation for removing the case from the September 29 cause list be kept in a sealed cover.
Registry note and the mentioning
The Bench went through the Registry’s note, which stated that a request had been made to list the contempt and writ petitions before one Bench, that the contempt matter was listed on September 29 inadvertently, and that directions were later received from the Chief Justice of India to place it before a Special Bench. The Court observed that the Registry could have conveyed this to the Bench.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the petitioners, said they had been given no notice of any mentioning and that a matter publicly listed for hearing had been “plucked off” the board while they waited for it to be called, calling it a question of institutional credibility. He pointed out that litigants travel from across the country for listed matters.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the Court that she had made the mention. She explained that on September 22 the Union’s main defence in the contempt case had been the new Act, that her request to hear both matters together was declined by the Bench, and that she then mentioned before the CJI. When the Court said she should have informed the other side, she responded:
“I apologise. It is my mistake.”
The Bench noted that the petitioners had been taken by surprise and that it had itself learnt of the Special Bench’s constitution only at 9 PM the previous night. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also tendered an apology. Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, also for the petitioners, disputed that any request for a combined hearing had been made on September 22 or September 29.
Contempt versus the new Act
The Court said the matters now stood clubbed, and that whether the Act removes the basis of the judgment or overrides it would be considered separately. It proposed that pleadings in the writ petitions be completed by their returnable date, November 18, 2026.
Divan pressed for the contempt case to be heard at once and not tied to the writ petitions, arguing that the judgment contained time-bound directions unconnected to the Act, including a cadre review to be completed within six months of the May 23, 2025 verdict. He also contended that the Act had not been notified, which the ASG disputed. Mehta maintained that the contempt could not be separated from the challenge to the Act and sought time to study the case, while Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that it had to be seen how the Act had superseded the directions. The Bench responded that the objection had already been dealt with in the main judgment, and Divan added that the review petition had been dismissed.
Kumar told the Court that three more IPS deputations had been made after September 22 and urged that the Union be restrained. Dwivedi responded that the Act permits deputation. The Court said it would examine on the next date whether any directions were independent of the Act and, if so, whether they had been complied with, observing that it was dealing with directions that had attained finality and that the time limits had already expired.
Order and next date
In its order, the Court recorded that the contempt petition had been listed with Writ Petitions 873, 977 and 908 of 2026, and noted the Registry’s report that counsel for the respondents had mentioned before the CJI for a common listing because one of the defences in the contempt case was the Act under challenge. It recorded the petitioners’ submission that several directions were not covered by the Act and that the contempt hearing should not be deferred to the writ petitions’ returnable date. Initially fixing the matters for October 13 on the SG’s request for two weeks, the Bench shifted the date to October 15 at the SG’s request, leaving the returnable date in the writ petitions unchanged. Closing the hearing, the Court remarked:
“Sometimes too much heat is generated out of nothing. One should not be so much worried about all these things.”
Background of the case
In Sanjay Prakash and Others v. Union of India, decided on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court held the CAPFs to be organised Group A services and directed a progressive reduction of IPS deputation to senior posts in the forces, along with a time-bound cadre review. The Centre’s review petition was dismissed in October 2025. Serving and retired CAPF officers later filed contempt petitions against the Union Home Secretary alleging non-compliance, while the CAPF Act, 2026, which the petitioners say nullifies the judgment, has been separately challenged. No finding on contempt has yet been recorded.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Deo and Others v. Govind Mohan and Others
Case Number: Contempt Petition (C) No. 37 of 2026 in C.A. No. 13106 of 2024, with W.P. Nos. 873, 977 and 908 of 2026
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (Special Bench), Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: September 30, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Guru Krishna Kumar for the petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for the respondents