Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Harsh Ajay Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 11011/2022 & CM APPL. 32617 of 2022
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Alice Raj, Ms. Suroor Mander, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 10023/2022.
Mr. K.N. Jayasankar, Ms. Beena Nair, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 13910/2022, 13911/2022, 13913/2022, 15171/2022, 15174/2022.
Mr. Ashish Mohan, Mr. Samarth Chaudhary, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 10887/2022.
Ms. Chhavi Yadav, Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Advocate, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C)10422/2022.
Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Mr. Manoj Singh, Mr. Manoj Mahaur, Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11011/2022 & W.P.(C) 11014/2022.
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. H S Tiwari, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 10231/2022 & W.P.(C) 10748/2022.
Mr. Dinesh Kr. Goswami, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Pandey, Mr.Vaibhav Maheshwari, Mr. Varad Dwivedi, Ms. Munisha Anand, Mr.Adhyam Gupta, Ms. Nisha Thakur, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11012/2022.
Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Ms. Suman, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11013/2022.
Mr. D.K. Garg, Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 12034/2022.
Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Advocate, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11364/2022.
Mr. Kamal Kapoor, Advocate, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 14509/2022.
Mr. Gautam Dhamija, Ms. Dania Nayyar, Mr. Tejaswi Bhanu, Mr. Virendra Rawat, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 14596/2022.
Mr. Krishnamohan Menon, Ms. Dania Nayyar, Mr. Gautam Dhamija, Mr. Chaitanyashil Priyadarshi, Ms. Tejaswi Bhanu, Ms. Parul Sachdeva, Ms. Saloni Sharma and Mr. Sumit Kulkarni, Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadia, Mr. Suman Saharan, Mr. Anuj Sharma and Mr. Divesh Gupta, Advocates for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 10856/2022.
Wg. Cdr. Pradeep Kumar S Pillai (Retd.) - in person in W.P.(C) 17302/2022.
Mr. B. Aloor and Mr. Sathesh K.R., Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 16695/2022.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, CGSC, Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Chaitanya Puri, Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Kunjala Bhardwaj, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Mr. Waize Ali, Mr. Rishav Dubey, Mr. Danish Faraz Khan, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat, Mr. Manvendra Singh, Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Ms. B.L.N. Shivani, Ms. Vidhi Jain, Ms. Durgeshnadini, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Prashant Singh, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Ms. Aishwary Mishra and Mr. Aditya Singh Chauhan, Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocates along with Colonel Gurpreet Kaur Dayal, Major Partho Katyayan, Major Steve Barreto, Lt. Commander Vikrant Singh, Wing Commander Vishal Chopra and Captain Sirdhar Jayasankar., for the Respondents in all the matters.
Headnote:
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Agnipath Scheme, a recruitment scheme for the Indian Armed Forces, and dismissed challenges to its implementation. The Court held that the scheme was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and that it was in the national interest to create a more youthful, agile, and physically fit Armed Forces. The Court also held that the Petitioners, who had participated in the recruitment process but had not been appointed, did not have a vested right to be appointed and that the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation did not apply in the instant case.
Fact of the Case:
The Agnipath Scheme was challenged on the grounds that it was discriminatory and arbitrary, and that it violated the Petitioners' right to equality. The Petitioners also argued that they had a vested right to be appointed to the Armed Forces because they had participated in the recruitment process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Agnipath Scheme was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and that it was in the national interest to create a more youthful, agile, and physically fit Armed Forces. The Court also held that the Petitioners did not have a vested right to be appointed to the Armed Forces because they had not been appointed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Agnipath Scheme is constitutional? 2. Whether the Petitioners have a vested right to be appointed to the Armed Forces?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Agnipath Scheme was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and that it was in the national interest to create a more youthful, agile, and physically fit Armed Forces. The Court relied on the following principles: * The scope of judicial review is limited when the scheme or policy decision pertains to the national security of our nation. * The Government is the sole arm of the State responsible for national security, and hence, must make such decisions. * The Court is not an expert in matters of national security and, thus, should not interfere with the Government's decisions in this area. 2. The Court held that the Petitioners did not have a vested right to be appointed to the Armed Forces because they had not been appointed. The Court relied on the following principles: * Individuals who were merely waiting to be issued Appointment Letters, cannot claim to have a vested right to gain employment. * The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies by appointing candidates selected for that purpose.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Agnipath Scheme and dismissed the Petitioners' challenges.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. A batch of twenty-one Writ Petitions being, W.P.(C) Nos. 10023/2022, 10231/2022, 10386/2022, 10422/2022, 10748/2022, 10856/2022, 10887/2022, 11011/2022, 11012/2022, 11013/2022, 11014/2022, 11904/2022, 12034/2022, 13910/2022, 13911/2022, 13912/2022, 13913/2022, 14596/2022, 15171/2022, 15174/2022 and 15319/2022 were heard analogously and were reserved on 15.12.2022. Thereafter, W.P.(C) 17302/2022 came up for hearing on 19.12.2022 and was heard and reserved for judgment. W.P.(C) 16695/2022 was received on transfer from the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum and came up for hearing on 19.12.2022 on which date there was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2023. On 17.02.2023 the matter was heard and reserved for judgment.
2. While some Writ Petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Agnipath Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Impugned Scheme'), in others, the grievance of the Petitioners is that they went through the recruitment process for the Armed Forces that was prevalent prior to the Impugned Scheme. It is stated that they have been shortlisted but have not been appointed because of the Impugned Scheme and, thereby, have been prejudiced. Some Writ Petitioners have challenged both - the Scheme and the prejudice caused to them by the introduction of the Impugned Scheme. This judgment is, therefore, divided into two parts - Part A deals with the validity of the Impugned Scheme and Part B deals with the grievances of the Petitioners that the Impugned Scheme has taken away their rights insofar as they have participated in the recruitment process and many of them have been shortlisted but have not been appointed due to the Impugned Scheme.
PART-A: CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE SCHEME FACTS
3. The Ministry of Defence, Union of India came up with a scheme for recruitment of personnel below the rank of commissioned officers for the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and Indian Navy (hereinafter referred to as the "Indian Armed Forces") for a period of four years. The recruited soldiers have been titled as `Agniveers'. As per the scheme, individuals aged between 17.5 years to 21 years are eligible to apply for recruitment as Agniveers. Upon being recruited, such individuals would get trained for a period of 6 months and will be in active service for a period of 3.5 years and post that 25% of such Agniveers will be retained as soldiers under the permanent commission and the rest of the Agniveers will be permitted to return to the civilian life. As per the scheme, Agniveers are given a salary of about Rs.4.76 lacs per year to begin with, which can be increased to about Rs.6.92 lacs by their fourth year in service. The Agniveers, in case of a mishappening or an accident, are liable to receive a non-contributory life insurance cover of about Rs.48 lacs, additional ex-gratia of Rs.44 Lacs for death attributable to service, and salary for the unserved portion of the four year service. At the end of the four year tenure, each Agniveer will leave the service with a corpus of about Rs.11 lacs. Many of the Agniveers who are not retained in the army will be absorbed in the paramilitary forces. The Agniveers who are not retained will also be given certificates of experience of the nature of work rendered by them which will facilitate them to get jobs in private sector.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS
4. Ms. Kumud Lata Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C)110011/2022, contends that the period of 3.5 years may be too short in the Indian milieu to gain the physical and psychosocial experience of having served in the Armed Forces. She submits that as per the Scheme, no pension will be provided to Agniveers which is contrary to schemes of other countries after which the Impugned Scheme has been modelled. Further, it has been submitted that the life insurance cover, as envisaged under the Impugned Scheme, is less than that of a regula
