The court upheld that disciplinary proceedings against military personnel must adhere to established regulations, ensuring all rights for defense are preserved during Court Marshal proceedings.

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2026 IN OA NO.253 OF 2025 OF ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

N. NAGARESH & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.

W.P.(C) No.11339 of 2026

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026

J U D G M E N T

Nagaresh, J.

The petitioner, who is in the rank of Squadron Leader in the Indian Air Force, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 25.02.2026 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi by which the Tribunal has refused to interfere with Court Marshal proceedings at an interlocutory stage.

2. The petitioner is a certified Adventure and Sea Survival Instructor qualified in Scuba Diving, Sailing, Kayaking, Open-water Swimming, Watercraft Operations, Wet Winching, Survival Dinghy Training, Heli-borne Water Rescue and Emergency First Response. He was posted to IAF Aqua Adventure Nodal Centre in the year 2021.

3. In the year 2025, Flt. Lt. Hemalatha filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The petitioner was served with a charge sheet. On the basis of the report submitted by the ICC, Summary of Evidence was initiated on 12.08.2025. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 OA No.253/2025 in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench, Kochi. The OA was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order dated 25.02.2026 on the ground that the OA is premature. Consequently, the General Court Marshal is scheduled to be assembled with effect from 26.03.2026.

4. The petitioner states that Ext.P5 order of the AFT is illegal. The petitioner states that the initiation of disciplinary action is premature and before the expiry of statutory appeal period from the date of receipt of ICC proceedings. The charge sheet is in excess of ICC findings. Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 were never the subject of ICC enquiry. One Flt. Lt. Anjali Mann was both an ICC member and PW7 in summary evidence. She is an interested witness.

5. Non-furnishing of enquiry report to the delinquent before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion, vitiates the entire proceedings. Out of the 14 defence witnesses cited by the petitioner, 6 witnesses were curtailed without any justification. 16 out of 56 cross examination questions were disallowed. The laptop and mobile phone of the petitioner were seized and are in the custody of the respondents. These gadgets contain material pieces of evidence which would be helpful in defence of the petitioner's case. Withholding of mobile phone of the petitioner amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case.

6. The petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of ICC, an anonymous complaint was received which was also subjected to enquiry. Anonymous complaints cannot be made basis of disciplinary proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have interfered in the Court Marshal proceedings and give justice to the petitioner.

7. The observations made by the AFT in Ext.P5 order to the effect that charges are established against the petitioner would prejudice the General Court Marshal. In the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the ICC report is vitiated and void ab initio and all the subsequent proceedings based on the same charge sheet and all proceedings under Rule 24 of the Air Force Rules including the Summary of Evidence are void and illegal.

8. On behalf of respondents 1 to 5, the Deputy Solicitor General of India filed a statement in defence. Respondents 1 to 5 submitted that while an ICC proceeding was pending, an anonymous complaint of sexual harassment was received. After completion of ICC proceedings, the said complainant, who is an NCC cadet, revealed her name and informed that she was not keen on revealing her personal details and is not willing to be present during internal committee. Therefore, her complaint was not taken into consideration in the Internal Commit