$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 04.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 2676/2025 LAUV KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Rajshekhar Rao Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Kshitij Sharda along with petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr.Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Mr.Hussain Taqvi, GP, Mr.Ayush Tanwar &

Ms.Ayushi Srivastav, Advs.

along with Maj Anish Muralidhar, Army & Sub Jagat Singh, DG Assam Rifles.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 12802/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 2676/2025 & CM APPL. 12801/2025

2. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in OA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2676/2025 Page 1 of 4 No. 434/2025 titled, ‘Maj Lauv Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.’ modifying the Interim Order dated 17.02.2025 passed in the said petition, to the limited extent that while the respondents may proceed with the Court of Inquiry and complete it, however, before taking any action in the matter, they shall take leave of the learned Tribunal.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court of Inquiry has been ordered on Anonymous/Pseudonymous complaints, which, in terms of the instructions of the Government of India by an Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2024, should have been filed straight away. He submits that the respondents, on the other hand, are relying upon a policy directive dated 11.04.2023, which cannot supersede the instructions issued by the Government of India. He submits that, without prejudice to the above, even if the policy instructions dated 11.04.2023 are to be applied, they state that first the Anonymous/Pseudonymous complaints should be investigated and analysed at an appropriate level by an inquiry undertaken by an independent officer/office. He submits that the said process has also not been followed in the present case. He further submits that, even otherwise, the respondents appear to be acting out of malice against the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that adequate protection has been granted to the petitioner, inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has directed that though the Court of Inquiry may continue, no action based on the same shall be taken by the respondents without obtaining Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2676/2025 Page 2 of 4 leave of the learned Tribunal.

5. He further submits that the question whether the respondent is bound by the instructions issued by the Government of India as far as anonymous/pseudonymous complaints are concerned, is pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal in OA No. 1111/2023 titled, ‘Colonel NC Dwivedi v. Union of India, Ors.’. He submits that, even otherwise, by an Order dated 09.01.2024, passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai, in OA No. 98/2023, titled, ‘Maj Gen Devendra Arora v. Union of India & Ors.’ the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai has already held that the respondents are not barred from having their own independent or supplementary policy on matters of investigation into anonymous/pseudonymous complaints.

6. He further submits that there are certain grave allegations, which are made in the complaints against the petitioner. The complaints are also accompanied by certain documents, which made it verifiable in nature, because of which a notice was first issued to the petitioner to elicit his response and, after considering the reply of the petitioner at a competent level, a Court of Inquiry was convened.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The primary issue to be determined by the learned Tribunal in the above OA would be whether the respondents can at all conv