# Supreme Court Rebukes Registry and State Counsel Over Abrupt Removal of Case Without Informing Bench

> The Supreme Court strongly reprimanded its registry and government counsel after a CAPF contempt matter was deleted from a regular bench's cause list without informing the judges. The matter has now been tagged with related constitutional petitions for hearing on October 15.

**Type:** article · **Category:** India · **Published:** 2026-09-30 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/national/bina-janakari-bencha-se-kesa-hatane-para-supreme-court-sakhta-registry-aura-sarakari-vakila-ki-karyashaili-para-savala-40294 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Supreme Court, CAPF, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Atul Chandurkar, Justice Manoj Misra, Court Registry, Contempt Petition, Cause List

A sharp procedural dispute unfolded in the Supreme Court over the sudden deletion of a Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) matter from a scheduled hearing list. The judges voiced severe displeasure after learning that a case placed before a regular bench was removed without informing the sitting judges. The court pointedly observed that altering the allocation of cases through backdoor methods raises fundamental questions regarding institutional transparency. Serious reservations were also expressed regarding the conduct of government counsel who mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) without prior intimation to the opposing parties.

## Case Vanished From the Cause List Moments Before Hearing
The controversy emerged when the matter was duly scheduled for a hearing before the regular division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Chandurkar. The legal teams and litigants were fully prepared inside the courtroom to commence arguments. Just before proceedings were to begin, the case was abruptly struck off from the cause list. Shockingly, the bench entrusted with adjudicating the dispute had not been given even the slightest intimation regarding the removal.

Taking immediate exception to this irresponsible handling, the concerned bench summoned answers from the registry. The judges sought clarity on who authorized the reshuffling of judicial files without the explicit knowledge or consent of the sitting judges. Later that evening, an official notice was uploaded to the Supreme Court website confirming that the case had been transferred to a special bench.

## Objections to Secret Mentioning and Backdoor Allocation
When the controversy landed before the special bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, the explanation submitted by the registry drew sharp reactions. The registry clarified that government counsel had orally mentioned the proceeding directly before the CJI. The state side justified this by arguing that the contempt case directly hinged on the validity of the principal statute, a legal question already under consideration by the special bench.

The court took strong objection to the failure to take the opposing parties into confidence before approaching the CJI. The judges questioned why such an extraordinary step was taken without putting the sitting regular bench on notice. Emphasizing the sanctity of open court proceedings, the bench remarked that clandestine administrative shifts directly undermine public trust in the transparency of judicial administration.

## Contempt Matter Tagged With Constitutional Challenge for October 15
The substantive dispute stems from friction between an ongoing contempt petition and challenges to the constitutionality of the governing statutory framework. The special bench is examining petitions whose final outcome will directly influence whether contempt proceedings can be sustained. This intersection formed the basis of the attempt to club the matters together.

After examining the explanation provided by the registry and hearing the arguments presented, the Supreme Court formally tagged the contempt case with the substantive petition challenging the validity of the principal statute. The combined dispute is now scheduled for its next comprehensive hearing on October 15.

## What this means for you
This development directly impacts institutional transparency in judicial case listing and upholds procedural safeguards for litigants.

- **Integrity of Hearings:** Administrative shifting of cases without intimating the concerned judges or opposing counsels faces tighter judicial scrutiny. This safeguards everyday litigants against arbitrary backdoor alterations in their case hearings.
- **Relief for CAPF Personnel:** Personnel awaiting relief under the contempt petition must now wait until October 15 for substantive consideration. The combined hearing on that date will decide the constitutional validity alongside the contempt action.
- **Notice Requirements for Counsel:** Advocates are put on strict notice that secret oral mentioning without serving notice to opposing parties will not be tolerated. This reinforces fair play across all courtroom proceedings.
- **Registry Accountability:** The Supreme Court registry faces heightened accountability to prevent unilateral shuffling of case files without judicial consent. Litigants benefit from an orderly, predictable listing process that prevents sudden deletions.

## Why this happened
This controversy was triggered when an active matter was removed from a regular bench cause list and reassigned to a special bench without putting the judges or opposing litigants on notice.

- **Unilateral Mentioning by State Counsel:** Government counsel directly mentioned the matter before the CJI without informing opposing lawyers. The state justified this by arguing the contempt plea overlapped with issues under review before a special bench.
- **Absence of Judicial Intimation:** The regular division bench listed to hear the case was entirely unaware of the administrative deletion. The sitting judges took sharp exception to administrative staff moving files without bench consent.
- **Legal Interconnection:** The pending contempt proceedings were directly dependent on the constitutional validity of the primary statute. While consolidation was legally logical, the covert manner in which the transfer was orchestrated invited severe judicial reprimand.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. Why was the Supreme Court bench furious with the registry?
The case was abruptly deleted from the cause list without intimating the scheduled judges or serving notice to opposing parties.

### 2. Which bench was originally scheduled to hear the matter?
The case was originally listed before the regular bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Chandurkar.

### 3. Why did government counsel mention the case before the CJI?
The state counsel argued that the case was closely linked to the validity of the principal statute currently under review by a special bench.

### 4. Which special bench is now handling the matter?
The dispute was placed before a special bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

### 5. When is the next hearing scheduled for this case?
The Supreme Court has tagged the contempt petition with the constitutional challenge and fixed October 15 as the next date of hearing.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._