In a curious turn of events, a contempt petition filed by officers of Central Armed Police Forces and listed before a Supreme Court bench was deleted from the cause list on the day of the hearing.
Neither the bench nor the petitioners in the contempt matter had any information about the deletion or violation of the judicial order.
The bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar, who were scheduled to hear the Non-Functional Financial Upgrade (NFFU) case impacting almost 25,000 to 30,000 serving and retired CAPF officers, ordered the Registry to explain the reasons for such last-minute deletion thus over ruling a judicial order upon mention by the petitioners.
Curiously, this was followed by an administrative order late at about 8 pm about the constitution of a special bench by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to hear both the contempt and the challenge to the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026. The special bench was to be headed by Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Bhuyan. The case was subsequently listed for 30 September.
During the hearing before the special bench, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati stated that she had mentioned before the Chief Justice on 23 September that both the contempt petition and the challenge to the CAPF Act may be combined and listed before one bench. The ASG also submitted that she forgot to inform the petitioners.
What’s intriguing
The ASG mentioning and requesting the combining of two cases at different stages of pleadings and the order of the formation of a special bench in this manner give rise to several questions.
Firstly, the protocol and common courtesy demands that whenever any mention of an ongoing case is made, prior intimation to the opposing parties should be given. That the ASG did not do so at the time of mentioning and subsequently did not inform both the petitioners as well as the bench till the case was listed before the special bench on 30 September is surprising to say the least. The question that naturally follows is whether this was a genuine mistake or a deliberate lapse.
Secondly, the challenge to the CAPF (General Administration) Act, 2026 was earlier heard by the bench of Justice Mishra and it was listed to be heard on 18 November 2026 after completion of pleadings. Why and how did the ASG deem it fit to combine it with the contempt petition that was already at an advanced stage of hearing? Had the ASG informed the petitioners before making the mention before the bench of CJI, the petitioners’ lawyers would have got an opportunity to explain the unreasonableness of the proposal. The special bench in fact has taken note of this dichotomy and refrained from combining the two cases till the time it is able to discern the commonality of legal issues and decide whether the two cases can be combined.
Thirdly, it is intriguing that the Registry failed to take any action on the order of CJI to constitute a special bench till the listing of the case for hearing on 29 September. There were almost six days between the order and the date of hearing. The Registry should therefore make all related documents public — including the audio and video recording of mention by ASG on 23 September in the court of the CJI — and share them with petitioners for the sake of transparency and to clarify any apprehensions.
As has been commented by several senior lawyers, the episode doesn’t reflect well on the functioning of the Registry. It has further added to the criticism that the system of ‘master of the roster’ is already facing for making last-minute changes to the bench in cases.
Also read: Why the CAPF Bill is a victory for internal security
A vicious cycle
The NFFU case of CAPF officers appears to be stuck in a vicious cycle despite almost 17 years of struggle — first through representations to the concerned authorities and, thereafter, through a legal battle that itself is now 15 years old.
The government has been steadfast in refusing to implement judicial orders. The 2015 Delhi High Court order was appealed by the government, and after the Supreme Court also decided in favour of CAPF officers, it was interpreted and implemented in a manner that only a truncated NFFU was granted, leaving over 98 per cent of the cadre officers out of its ambit. This led officers to file another petition.
The detailed and well-reasoned order of the Supreme Court in May 2025 should have brought finality to the case in favour of CAPF officers. However, as the proverb goes, there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip. The short-lived euphoria of CAPF officers ended with the passage of CAPF (General Administration) Act, 2026, which effectively neutralised the order of the Supreme court.
During the press conference held by the Association of ex-Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel earlier this year, journalist Mayank Kumar of ThePrint asked me why the government appeared to be favouring IPS officers? I replied that “it is because of a strong IPS lobby which leads the CAPF and does not adequately project issues of these forces to the political executive.”
My words were echoed by Justice Bhuyan during the hearing of the contempt petition on 2 Sept, wherein he stated “…. sorry to use these words, there is a strong lobby there ……. CRPF, ITBP BSF they are completely stifled ….”, among other things.
The IPS lobby, which has strong roots in the system, has so far been successful in thwarting the aspirations of CAPF officers. The question that crosses one’s mind is whether the events of 29 September in the Supreme Court are the result of machinations by the IPS lobby.
One wonders when the travails of CAPF officers will end and when they will get their rightful dues.
Sanjiv Krishan Sood is a former Additional Director General of the Border Security Force (BSF). He tweets @sood_2. Views are personal.