1. Challenge to denial of Permanent Commission in the Indian Navy — validity of selection proceedings adjudicated by tribunal based on material provided in sealed covers. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, JJ.
CDR Amit Kumar Sharma Etc – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Etc – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos 841-843 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No 846 of 2022 (@ Civil Appeal Nos 845-846 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No 2457 of 2022 with Civil Appeal Nos 2059-2060 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No 2216 of 2022 with Civil Appeal Nos 856-858 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No 855/2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 852-854 of 2022 with Civil Appeal Nos 844 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 847-851 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No of 2022 (Diary No 20730 of 2022) and with Civil Appeal No of 2022 (Diary No. 23503 of 2022)
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Important Points
The non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party and its disclosure in a sealed cover causes a serious violation of natural justice, leading to substantial prejudice. All material relied upon by either party in a judicial proceeding must be disclosed to ensure fairness and transparency in the adjudication process.
Subject
Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Denial of Permanent Commission in Indian Navy
Act Referred
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL ACT: S.31(1)
STOCK EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations: Reg.9
STOCK EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations: Reg.9
Headnote
Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Denial of Permanent Commission in Indian Navy - Regulation 203, Chapter IV of Part III of the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Regulations 1963 - Principle issue of adjudication on validity of selection proceedings when relevant material was disclosed only to the AFT in a sealed cover
Fact of the Case:
The Ministry of Defence notified that women Short Service Commission Officers would be eligible for grant of Permanent Commission prospectively. The issue was whether women inducted in various branches of the Indian Navy prior to 2008 were entitled to the grant of Permanent Commission. The Indian Navy worked out a total of 88 vacancies and considered 306 officers for Permanent Commission against the vacancies, granting PC to 80 of them. Many officers who were not granted PC filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of their claim for PC.
Finding of the Court:
The AFT disposed of the cases transferred to it and those challenging the denial of PC. The AFT extensively relied upon material submitted in a sealed cover by the Naval Authorities to determine the validity of the selection proceedings and the fairness of the process. The AFT concluded that the Indian Navy had considered the SSC officers for PC based on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Annie Nagaraj. However, the material relied upon was not disclosed to the appellants, causing substantial prejudice.
Issues: Non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party and its disclosure in a sealed cover, causing substantial prejudice to the officers. The AFT's reliance on undisclosed material to arrive at its findings, denying the appellants the opportunity to challenge the findings.
Ratio Decidendi: All material relied upon by either party in a judicial proceeding must be disclosed. The non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party and its disclosure in a sealed cover causes a serious violation of natural justice. The AFT should reconsider the entire matter afresh due to the breach of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment of the AFT was set aside. The OAs corresponding to the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication by the AFT. The AFT was directed to dispose of the OAs expeditiously and preferably by the end of February 2023.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contest vacancy calculations and batch clubbing — claim prejudice due to non-disclosure of sealed cover material; Respondents maintain adherence to policy and confidentiality of board proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. Reliance on sealed cover material without disclosure to affected parties causes material prejudice and undermines transparency, reliability, and the right to a fair trial. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. All material relied upon in judicial proceedings must be disclosed to the affected party to prevent violations of natural justice and ensure transparency. (Para 27 , 28 )
5. Appeals allowed — AFT judgment set aside — matters remanded for fresh adjudication with continued interim protection for affected officers. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
6. What is the legal effect of using a sealed cover procedure to provide evidence to a tribunal without disclosing it to the opposing party?
It violates the principles of natural justice, causes material prejudice, and undermines transparency and accountability. It denies the aggrieved party the right to effectively challenge findings and creates an information asymmetry that tilts the balance of power toward the dominant party, typically the State. (Para 23 , 27 , 28 )
7. Is the right to disclosure of all material in judicial proceedings absolute?
No. Disclosure may be restricted in exceptional circumstances involving sensitive information, such as third-party privacy or strategic security. However, non-disclosure must be proportionate to the purpose served, and the core material used to reach a decision must generally be disclosed. (Para 26 , 28 , 29 )
8. What are the primary purposes served by the disclosure of information to parties during adjudication?
Disclosure serves three main purposes: reliability, by aiding the court in determining the truth of contentions; fair trial, by ensuring parties can effectively participate in proceedings; and transparency and accountability, by preventing opaque adjudication and allowing public scrutiny. (Para 25 )
JUDGMENT
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - Leave to appeal under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. This batch of appeals arises from a judgment dated 3 January 2022 of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal1["AFT"]. The AFT dismissed the applications challenging the denial of Permanent Commission2["PC"] in the Indian Navy. The principle issue is whether the AFT could have adjudicated on the validity of the selection proceedings when relevant material was disclosed only to the AFT in a sealed cover.
The Facts
4. On 26 September 2008, the Ministry of Defence notified that women Short Service Commission3[ "SSC"] Officers would be eligible for grant of PC prospectively. In Union of India v. Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraj, (2020) 13 SCC 1 the issue for consideration before this court was whether women who were inducted in various branches of the Indian Navy prior to 2008 were entitled to the grant of PC. By its judgment dated 17 March 2020, this Court observed, inter alia, that4[Paragraphs 109.5, 109.6 and 109.7 of the judgment in Annie Nagaraj.]:
(i) As a result of the policy decision of the Union Government dated 25 February 1999, the terms and conditions of service of SSC Officers including women with regard to the grant of PC were governed by Regulation 203 of Chapter IV of Part III of the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Regulations 19635["Regulations"];
(ii) The stipulation in the policy letter dated 26 September 2008 making it prospective and applicable only to specified branches/cadres of the Indian Navy (Education, Law and Naval Construction) was not enforceable;
(iii) All SSC Officers in the Education, Law and Logistics cadres, who were "presently in service" shall be considered for the grant of PCs;
(iv) The officers were entitled to the grant of PC in view of the policy letter of the Union Government dated 25 February 1999 read with Regulation 203;
(v) SSC women officers in the batch of cases before the High Court and the AFT who are "presently in service" shall be considered for the grant of PC on the basis of the vacancy position as on the date of the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the AFT or as it "presently stands", whichever is higher;
(vi) The applications of the serving officers for the grant of PC shall be considered on the basis of the norms contained in Regulation 203, namely,
(a) availability of vacancies in the stablised cadre at the relevant time;
(b) determination of suitability;
(c) recommendation of the Chief of Naval Staff; and
(d) empanelment shall be based on the inter-se merit evaluated on the ACRs of the officers under consideration, subject to the availability of vacancies.
5. There are three points in time, which were taken into consideration by the authorities for the determination of vacancies, namely
(i) August 2015, when the judgment of the High Court in Annie Nagaraj (supra) was pronounced;
(ii) September 2016, when the decision of the AFT in Commander Priya Khurana v. Union of India, OA No 143 of 2016 was pronounced; and
(iii) March 2020, when the decision of this Court in Annie Nagaraj (supra) case was pronounced.
6. Following the above directions, the process for implementing the judgment was carried out. The respondents worked out a total of 88 vacancies. 306 officers were considered for PC against the 88 vacancies after which 80 of them were granted PC. The second respondent (Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy)) issued a signal order releasing many SSC officers from service on the ground that they had not obtained PC. The Signal order only notes the date of commission, date of release and the Unit of the officer without any reference to the process of selection that was undertaken or the relative merit. Many of the SSC officers, both men and women, who were not granted PC filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the rejection of their claim for PC. In the alternative, th
