NEW DELHI: The sound and fury in the Supreme Court Wednesday over the clubbing of two petitions – one seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings for the violation of an earlier SC judgement and the other challenging the validity of a new law – both on the deputation of IPS officers in the central armed police forces (CAPFs), has turned out to be much ado about nothing.The contempt petition was initiated for the alleged violation of the SC’s May 23, 2025, judgement directing the gradual reduction and eventual phasing out of IPS officers’ deputation to CAPFs and is pending before a bench headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.Another petition, which challenged the validity of the new CAPF Act, which was enacted subsequent to the SC judgement and permitted the deputation of IPS officers to CAPFs, is before another bench headed by Justice Manoj Misra.On September 30, the contempt petition listed before Justice Bhuyan was abruptly dropped from the notified list of cases, and, subsequently, both the contempt petition and the writ petition were listed before a special bench of Justices Misra and Bhuyan. This led to an uproar before the special bench. Senior advocate Shyam Divan said, “You cannot have a listed matter plucked off the board. This is an all-India court. People make travel arrangements and come here from all over the country. Why should a matter which is listed be removed during the course of the day? Once the cause list is mentioned and notified in the Supreme Court of India, no one can fiddle with it.” Senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar echoed Divan’s grievance.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful ยท TOI community guidelines
However, it transpired that additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati had requested that the two petitions be clubbed and be placed for hearing before any one of the two benches on the ground that the new law was the defence of the Union govt in contempt and suggested that it would be better if the two cases were heard together.SC registry sources said following this, the CJI consulted the presiding judges – Justices Misra and Bhuyan – before constituting the special bench and placing both the matters before it.However, Justice Misra faulted the ASG for not informing the opposite side prior to making the request to the CJI, which led to such a situation. The CJI could not be contacted, as he is abroad.The SC registry, from which an explanation was sought, filed a report on clubbing of the two cases. The bench of Justices Misra and Bhuyan said in its order, “The explanation tendered by the registry is accepted and taken on record. The same shall be kept in a sealed cover by the concerned section.” It posted both the contempt petition and the writ petition for hearing together on Oct 15.
