CAPF Contempt Case: Supreme Court Lists Plea With Main Writ On October 13; Registry Report In Sealed Cover

This development came after the Court considered an explanation submitted by the Registry regarding why the contempt petition was not placed before the Bench hearing the matter on Tuesday.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was informed that the Registry had submitted a report explaining the circumstances in which the order passed in the contempt proceedings was not placed before the Bench concerned.

The report stated that counsel had made a mentioning before the Chief Justice of India seeking that the matters be listed before one Bench, since one of the defences in the contempt proceedings was that the Act whose vires had been challenged governed the issue.

The Court recorded that the writ petition had been heard by one Bench, while the contempt petition was being heard by another Bench. During the hearing, the petitioners submitted that several directions forming part of the contempt proceedings were independent of the Act under challenge and, therefore, the contempt proceedings need not be deferred.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan had earlier submitted that the contempt proceedings contained standalone directions and referred to directions arising from the 2025 Sanjay Prakash judgment, stating that the stipulated period had expired and no action had been taken.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time to study the submissions and assist the Court.

The Solicitor General had also submitted that the Act itself provided for deputation.

The Court noted that the returnable date in the main writ petition was November 18. It subsequently directed that the contempt petition be listed along with the writ petition on October 13 at 2 PM.

Justice Misra also directed that the explanation furnished by the Registry be kept in a sealed cover. “Sometimes too much of heat is generated out of nothing,” Justice Misra observed during the hearing.

Earlier, the Bench had indicated that it would first examine whether there were any directions in the contempt proceedings independent of the Act and whether those directions had been complied with.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi submitted that the association may be impleaded as the impact of the Act would need to be considered and could not be argued in its absence.

The Court, however, said the objection concerning the Act had already been dealt with in the main judgment.

The Bench clarified that the October 13 hearing would examine whether the directions in question were independent of the Act and whether they had been complied with. If the respondents were able to satisfy the Court on these aspects, the matters could be heard together.

The Solicitor General had earlier submitted that the writ petition and contempt proceedings could be heard together, stating that the Centre was “not here to fight.”

The Court did not prepone the November 18 returnable date in the main writ petition.