Till Final Order Is Passed In Court Martial Proceedings, Any Interference Through Writ Petition Uncalled for: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Order whereby the Internal Complaint Committee was re-constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Petitioner also sought quashing of the findings and opinion of the ICC and the order for convening the General Security Force Court (GSFC) against the Petitioner.

The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held, “That apart, it is a settled position of law that till such time a final order is passed in the proceedings of this nature, any interference without waiting for the final decision on the proceedings by the High Court in a writ petition is uncalled for.”

Advocate Arjun Pawar represented the Petitioner, while Central Govt Standing Counsel Swati R.K. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the Petitioner that he was recruited as a Sub-Inspector (GD) in 2013 and, upon completing his training, he was posted to the 58th Battalion. During December, 2024 to January, 2025, there was an acute shortage of resources, and there were frequent power outages, due to which the floodlights installed at the border went out. One night, the petitioner, after completing his patrolling duty, did not see the Sentry who was assigned duty at the LCTS room, and who was supposed to be patrolling the DHUSSI area due to the dense fog. The petitioner then found out that it was the complainant, who was on duty at that time. It was his case that he vehemently reproached the complainant as she was deployed in the LCTS room, which was the nodal point where all the camera recordings were being monitored.

As per the petitioner, when he scolded her for dereliction of duty, it had overwhelmed the complainant. It was two days after the incident that the petitioner received information from other personnel that the complainant had filed a complaint against him. The respondents forwarded the complaint to the ICC, and the proceedings were conducted for over a month. However, the same was annulled by the Competent Authority as the composition of the ICC was not in terms of Section 4 of the POSH Act, as the Presiding Officer of the ICC was a male. The ICC was then reconstituted.

The newly constituted ICC conducted the enquiry as per the POSH Act and the Border Security Forces Act, 1968 (BSF Act) and issued its findings wherein the petitioner was found to be blameworthy of misconduct, and disciplinary action was recommended to be taken against him. It was the petitioner’s case that there was a lack of quorum as the ICC was supposed to be constituted of four members, whereas it only had three members, and the members of the ICC did not have the requisite legal experience to conduct the proceedings.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the petitioner had filed a pre-confirmation petition, which was pending decision before the concerned Authority. Noting that the very finding of the GSFC was pending consideration before the concerned Authority, the Bench held that the respondents were justified in stating that the present petition was premature.

Reference was also made to the judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. L.D. Balam Singh (2002), wherein the challenge before the High Court was for quashing the charge sheet, sentence of the General Court Martial, order of confirmation of the General Officer Commanding and also the trial of the General Court Martial.

...it is expected that the Authority considering the pre-confirmation petition shall consider all the pleas, which have been urged by the petitioner in the pre-confirmation petition and accordingly pass a reasoned order. In fact, we have been informed that after pre-confirmation petition is decided, the petitioner has a remedy of post-confirmation as well under Rule 117(2) of the BSF Rules”, it added.

Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Ajit Kumar Singh v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2650-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Arjun Pawar, Prahil Sharma

Respondent: CGSC Swati R.K., Govt Pleader Dumni Soren, Advocate Mohnish Balu, DC (Law) Amit Kumar Singh

Click here to read/download Order