Inclusivity in Armed Forces Cannot Trump Over National Security Concerns: Delhi High Court Denies Relief to NDA Aspirant with HbE Trait

The Delhi High Court observed that considerations of inclusivity and ensuring representation, in the Armed Forces, of persons from all parts of the country cannot trump concerns of national security and operational efficiency of the persons who are recruited to the Armed Forces.

A Writ Petition was filed by an aspirant to enter the portals of the National Defence Academy (NDA) against the order of the Ministry of Defence stating that candidates suffering from haemolytic anaemias would be considered unfit for service.

The Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed, “The submission of Mr. Mukunda that, if this view were to be adopted, it would exclude, from the portals of the NDA, a large proportion of persons residing in the North-East, or from other states, quite obviously, has merely to be stated to be rejected. If such persons, owing to the possession of the HbE trait, are unfit for appointment to the NDA, that is but a consequence with which we can hardly interfere. Considerations of inclusivity and ensuring representation, in the Armed Forces, of persons from all parts of the country cannot, quite obviously, trump concerns of national security and operational efficiency of the persons who are recruited to the Armed Forces. It is well-settled that personal rights have to cede place to the national public interest."

Advocate M.V. Mukunda represented the Petitioner, while Advocates Abhishek Saket, Aparna Tripathi and Ravinder Agarwal represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for enrolment in the NDA filed a Writ Petition. As per the order of the Ministry of Defence, all candidates with evidence of hereditary haemolytic anaemias and haemoglobinopathies will be considered unfit for service.

The Petitioner’s All India Rank was 266, however, he was informed that he had been declared unfit for admission to the NDA on account of his suffering from Haemoglobinopathy (HbE trait). The Petitioner contended that in the guidelines there are only three categories of haemoglobinopathies which have been identified as disqualifying the candidate from admission to the NDA and Petitioner’s Haemoglobinopathy (HbE trait) does not fall in that category.

Further, it was submitted that the mere likelihood of the Petitioner becoming anaemic, which would also be only on rare occasions, could not be a ground to altogether reject him from admission to the NDA. This would amount to “indirect discrimination”.

Further, the Petitioner argued that if persons possessing the HbE trait are to be disqualified from admission to the NDA, in such a case, it would result in exclusion, from the NDA and, consequently, from the Indian Armed Forces, of 48% of the tribal population in some regions and 50% of the population in North East India in other areas.

While the Respondents contended that a person bearing the HbE trait, from which the Petitioner suffers may not be a candidate for immediate medical treatment, but the very possession of such a trait may render him susceptible to suffer from anaemia and such other disorders at later stages. Thus, it is a disabling factor when it comes to recruitment of candidates to the Armed Forces.

Court’s Analysis

The Bench opined that it is not possible to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant relief to the Petitioner.

“While we would love to enter into a detailed medical discussion on haemoglobinopathies and their various indicia and ingredients, we do not think that, in exercise of our constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226, it would either be apposite or appropriate for us to do so. Expressed more topically, if the executive, in the instructions issued by it, or the Rules framed by it, regards a particular medical condition, from which a candidate may suffer, as disentitling the candidates are for admission into the Armed Forces, we would be the last to interfere with that decision”, the Court said.

Further, the Court observed that any candidate, who has evidence of hereditary haemolytic anaemias or haemoglobinopathies is disentitled to recruitment or admission into the NDA.

“The words “Sickle cell disease, Beta thalassaemia: Major, Intermedia, Minor, Trait and Alpha Thalassaemia etc.,” follow the word “haemoglobinopathies”, in parentheses. They, therefore, can only be read as explaining what haemoglobinopathies are, and not as restricting haemoglobinopathies to certain specific categories. When a complex expression is followed by words in parenthesis, then, etymologically, the words in parentheses are meant to convey the meaning of the preceding expression. They are not words of restriction or limitation”, the Court added.

The Court also noted that there is no dispute about the fact that the possession of the HbE trait, even if it does not regularly result in clinical manifestations, render the carrier susceptible to anaemia when placed in particular conditions or situations, such as functioning at high altitudes.

“We have to be conscious of the fact that we are dealing with recruitment to the Armed Forces… If, in such conditions, the HbE trait, carried by such a cadet, would render him susceptible to anaemia, which would, with it, invite all its inevitable sequelae including weakness, inability to function at one’s optimum level, and the like, it could have serious repercussions on national security and the very integrity of the nation and its frontiers. These cannot be compromised”, the Court remarked.

Further, the Court noted that the Respondents have treated the Petitioner as ineligible for appointment to the NDA essentially because of the HbE trait carried by him, as it could render him susceptible to anaemia or similar conditions when placed in exacerbating situations.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition stating that under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not competent to take any other subjective view in that regard, or interfere with the discretion of the Respondents.

Cause Title: Shlok Sachin V. Union of India & Ors (2025:DHC:5460-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Mr. M.V. Mukunda and Ms. Shambhavi Kala, Advs

Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Saket, Sr. PC with Mr. Manish Madhukar, Ms. Aparna Tripathi and Mr. Abhigyan, Advs. for UOI Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. for UPSC

Click here to read/download Judgment