‘Unsustainable in law’: Armed Forces Tribunal reinstates Agniveer

Agniveer’s defence

Chauhan was selected as an Agniveer in the 2024–25 recruitment rally after clearing physical tests. Police verification later produced an adverse report referring to an FIR registered in Meerut on October 3, 2020, against 16 people, including Chauhan, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

A show-cause notice followed on September 12, 2025, and the Commanding Officer then discharged him on January 20, 2026.

Chauhan’s counsel submitted that he was about 17 years old at the time of the alleged village quarrel and that the FIR contained only general allegations. He relied on an order of the Allahabad High Court dated April 10, 2025, in a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

In paragraph 8 of that order, the high court directed that the matter “may not be treated as a pendency of criminal case against the applicant for seeking appointment/selection” in the Agniveer process.

‘Applicant stood protected by law’

The Tribunal held that the Allahabad High Court direction was binding on the Army and AFT. It said as long as the protection remained unmodified, the respondents could not treat non-disclosure as an “act unbecoming of a person in uniform” or independently treat the FIR as a disqualification.

“The import of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court, which was binding upon the respondents as well as this Tribunal, was that the applicant stood protected by law. In the peculiar circumstances, the applicant was entitled to proceed with his candidature for appointment in the Indian Army without the pendency of the FIR being treated as a disqualification,” the Tribunal noted.

It added that if the Army believed the high court order did not cover suppression of information in the enrolment form, it ought to have sought modification or clarification rather than proceed on its own.

The Tribunal also relied on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and relevant Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, and AFT rulings to hold that a minor need not disclose such involvement and that it cannot be used to disqualify them from employment.

“The applicant could not have been proceeded against for non-disclosure of the pendency of the criminal case. The action taken against the applicant … is unsustainable in law,” the Tribunal said.

The Tribunal allowed the original application, quashed the January 20, 2026 discharge order, and directed the respondents to take Chauhan back into Agniveer service “pursuant to the appointment issued to him, in accordance with law, with all consequential benefits.”

It clarified that the relief will be subject to any subsequent order of the Allahabad High Court if the Centre seeks to modify or clarify the interim protection granted to Chauhan.