SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, AJAY DIGPAUL, JJ.
 
Anil Kumar Upadhaya – Petitioner
Versus
UOI And Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1024 of 2010
Decided on : 08-08-2025
 

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Karn Deo Baghel and Mr. Shivam Choudhary, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Shravan Shukla, Mr. Yash Baraliya, Advs. with Mr. Paramveer Singh, Law Officer, BSF

The Summary Security Force Court validly conducted proceedings even with the petitioner’s psychiatric condition, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements and the uniqueness of each case.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the legality of the Summary Security Force Court proceedings against a petition alleging violation of due process in light of psychiatric conditions. The court devotes significant attention to procedural compliance under the BSF Act and Rules, alongside considerations of the jurisdictional issues inherent in trying civil offences summararily. Critical examinations of the mental fitness of the petitioner during trial proceedings are also presented. Ultimately, the court upholds the dismissal of the petitioner's writ application, reinforcing the integrity of disciplinary actions within the BSF structure.

Table of Content
1. recruitment and early diagnosis of allegations. (Para 1)

JUDGMENT :

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The petitioner, Anil Kumar Upadhyay, was recruited into the Border Security Force, [hereinafter “BSF”] on 01.01.1991 as a Constable (Radio Operator). He was subsequently promoted to the rank of Naik (Radio Operator) in 1992 and then to Head Constable (Radio Operator) in 1997. He served in various postings and, at the time of the relevant events in 2003, he was attached to the 126th Battalion, BSF, which was stationed at Nalkata, Tripura.

2. On 18.08.2003, the Petitioner was officially diagnosed with acute psychosis and placed in a low medical category for a period of six weeks as per the order of the Commandant, 126th Battalion, BSF.

3. On 27.08.2003, the Petitioner was examined by a Psychiatrist at the Government Hospital, Agartala, who prescribed medication and advised close observation. The OPD slip dated 27.08.2003 mentioned to keep a close observation to avoid self-harm or injury to others.

4. On 18.09.2003, Constable Narendra Kumar Yadav, also of the 126th Battalion, submitted a written complaint to the Commandant of the unit. The complaint alleged that on the night of 16.09.2003, at approximately 11:10 p.m., while the complainant was on patrolling duty, an unidentified person entered his residence, misbehaved with his wife, Mamta Yadav, and took away some money. The complainant further stated that his wife identified the petitioner as the person involved after seeing him pass by the house the following morning.

5. The petitioner, when approached by the Battalion Havildar Major (BHM), stated that he had remained in the barracks during the night of the incident and had not left his bunk. Nevertheless, on 23.09.2003, the Commandant ordered Vikram Singh, who was the Assistant Commandant to prepare a Record of Evidence, [hereinafter “RoE”] under Rules 45 and 48 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969,[hereinafter “BSF Rules”] based on the aforementioned complaint. The RoE was initiated to examine the petitioner on three charges:

(i) underSection 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 19684 read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [hereinafter “ IPC ”] for using criminal force with an intent to outrage the modesty of a woman;

(ii) under Section 41(f) of the BSF Act for committing an offence against a civilian in the area of deployment; and (iii) under Section 40 of the BSF Act for conduct prejudicial to discipline.

6. On 25.09.2003, the Assistant Commandant commenced the process of recording the RoE by examining witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the RoE was compiled and submitted to the Commandant for further action.

7. Around October-November 2003, the 126th Battalion was relocated from Tripura to Dabla, Jaisalmer. During this period, the petitioner was referred for psychiatric assessment due to concerns about his mental health. On 16.12.2003, the petitioner was diagnosed with schizophrenia by medical personnel at the BSF Hospital, SHQ Jaisalmer, and was further examined by a psychiatric specialist at the District Hospital, Jaisalmer. Based on their findings, the BSF Medical Board placed the petitioner in a low medical category (SHAPE 3) for a period of 24 weeks, effective up to 16.06.2004. He was prescribed psychiatric medication and advised rest.

8. On 16.01.2004, a formal charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by the Commandant. The charges were framed under Section 46 of the BSF Act for committing civil offences:

(i) theft in a dwelling house under Section 380 IPC ; and

(ii) use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman underSection 354 IPC .

The original charges framed during the RoE under Sections 41(f) and 40 of the BSF Act were not included in the final charge-sheet.

9. On 13.02.2004, the petitioner was informed that he would be tried by a Summary Security Force Court on 16.02.2004. He was also placed under close arrest on the same d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top