@pbhushan1 CAPFs Cadre Officers’ fight for Justice has been on for more than a decade now. Even after the SC ruling recognising the legitimacy of their Prayers the Govt misled by IPS Lobby is working to deny them.
The registry’s deletion of the hearing seems hijacked by the MHA/IPS Lobby.
पुलिस लीडरशिप नाकामीयों परो बहस हो । क्यों अधिकारी जिसमें मुख्यत IPS हैं, क़ानून व्यवस्था,चुनाव प्रबंधन, terrorism,हर मोर्चे पर विफल साबित हो रहे हैं ।थाने जाने से लोग डरते है ।ये अधिकारी पुलिस तंत्र ठीक करने में नाकाम है।अब CAPFs को पुलिस तर्ज़ पर धकेल रहे हैं । बहस् जरुरी है
@Abhishek35111@RattanRC@barandbench The comparison in itself is misplaced dear sir. Let ips be happy in their domain, focus on improving law & order, make a corruption free society rather than indulge in, and let CAPF be happy in their domain
A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar has asked the top court’s Registry to explain why a contempt petition related to the implementation of its May 2025 judgment on cadre issues in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) was “struck off” the cause list, despite a specific judicial order directing that it be listed for hearing at 2 p.m. on September 29.
✍️@vijaita
https://t.co/6AB9BSCufM
@Abhishek35111@RattanRC@barandbench Given your marks comparison, seem you have no idea of the issue at all. People in marks race can seldom become armed force commanders, as these very marks make them arm+ chair babus at the best with deep rooted insecurities. A commando course weigh much more than THE 2000 marks
Criticism do not deliver justice.CAPF contempt case test case for credibility of justice delivery system. Indicators bench change and removal of case unilaterally against spirit of justice. Apologies mean nothing. MOR need to restore original bench to restore credibility.
Bench change CAPF contempt case. Appeal CJI Justice Suryakant. Justice demand original bench slated to hear case on 29 Sept restored. Change and case removal unfair. Apologies mean nothing. Perception attempts to deny justice. Question over credibility of Supreme Court .
An apology may acknowledge the mistake, but it cannot by itself restore justice. Justice demands that the order be recalled, the matter be mentioned afresh before the CJI, and both sides be heard before any decision is taken. Only then can the principles of natural justice be truly upheld.
Is it fair for Master of Roster to change bench without hearing petitioners. Certainly not as legal eagles have spoken. Is it correct ethically, morally. Action diminishes already eroded trust. It is for those helming the higher judiciary to think of institutional credibility.