Back
Supreme Court seeks explanation from over CAPF contempt case deleted from
The on Tuesday took exception to its for striking off a from the afternoon despite a standing directing its listing at 2:00 PM. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar directed the to furnish a note explaining why the matter was removed, and ordered the case to be listed the next day before a .
A Ignored
The —filed by Mahendra Singh Deo and others against Govind Mohan and respondents—concerns alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment that directed a progressive reduction and eventual phasing out of IPS officer deputation posts in cadres. On , the Court had ordered the matter to be listed on at 2:00 PM. However, when the bench assembled, it was informed that the case had been struck off from the during the lunch recess.
"Since it is a
to get the case listed today at 02:00 PM, we direct listing of this case, along with the other connected matters, again tomorrow, i.e. on
, at 02:00 PM, with a note by the
, as to why the matter was struck off from the cause list despite there being a
,"
the Bench directed.
Petitioners Protest Listing
When the matter came up on Wednesday before a comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, , representing the petitioners, strongly objected to the manner in which the case had been listed. He argued that no notice had been given to the petitioners about the request to have the matter placed before a different bench.
"You cannot have a listed matter
. 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?"
Divan submitted.
The bench perused a report from the explaining that counsel for the respondents (the Centre) had mentioned the matters before the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, seeking to have both the and the connected (challenging the ) listed together. Justice Misra observed that the judges themselves were informed only late on Tuesday night about the constitution of the .
Centre Apologises for Procedure Lapse
acknowledged her role, stating that on she had requested that the contempt and writ batches be heard together because the Centre’s principal defence in the was the . When the bench indicated it could not hear both matters together, she mentioned the matter before the CJI. She apologised, saying, "It is my mistake." also subsequently apologised during the hearing.
The bench noted that while the petitioners were taken by surprise, the Centre’s request was procedurally sound—but the petitioners should have been informed.
"They feel the order has been violated, and rightly so,"
Justice Misra remarked.
Next Steps: Clubbed Hearing on
The court directed that the be listed on at 2:00 PM, along with the connected whose returnable date is . The bench indicated it would first determine whether any directions in the judgment are independent of the and, if so, whether those directions have been complied with. The ’s explanation regarding the listing was ordered to be kept in a .
, also appearing for the petitioners, urged the respondents to "hold their hands" on further deputations, alleging that three more had been made after . The court, however, did not pass any , noting that the matter would be taken up substantively on .
The case, , continues to highlight the delicate interplay between judicial orders, administrative listing, and the substantive merits of .
