Mahender Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Mahender Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction, subject to directions: (i) respondents to communicate to the petitioner the decision on his revision petition under Section 113 of the BSF Act; (ii) documents pertaining to the GSFC decision and the reference to the Revisionary Authority to be provided within two weeks if not already supplied; remedies in law and liberty to re-approach the Court reserved to the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction to the petitioner to report back/move to his parent Battalion (97th, Tripura) upon conclusion of the GSFC trial constitutes harassment and warrants challenge. +2 more

Court's answer

A direction to report back to one's parent Battalion cannot be treated as harassment; the petitioner's movement back is not a transfer.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was always posted with the 97th Battalion at Tripura and was merely attached with the 25th Battalion at Delhi for conducting the GSFC; the trial by the GSFC stands concluded.

Key takeaways

In that view of the matter, the petitioner has no case to assail his movement back to Tripura, to his parent Battalion.ratio¶¶18
No decision can be taken by the respondents on an oral announcement (answering counsel's submission that re-trial had been orally announced by the Commandant).ratio¶¶20
If any retrial of the petitioner commences and such retrial is contrary to law, it would be open to the petitioner to avail legal remedies.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mahender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. — W.P.(C) 17332/2025 & CM APPL. 71332/2025 — High Court of Delhi (C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.) — oral order, 14.11.2025. Petitioner, originally posted with the 97th Battalion of the BSF at Tripura, had been attached to the 25th Battalion at Delhi for trial before a General Security Force Court (GSFC); per the writ petition, the GSFC passed a reasoned judgment on 27 September 2024 exonerating him, the Confirming Authority on 28 June 2025 referred the decision for revision under S. 113, BSF Act, 1968, and the Revisionary Authority on 7 July 2025 again found him not guilty (counsel submitted this decision was oral). Challenging the post-trial direction to return to his parent Battalion at Tripura as 'harassment', the Bench held that such a direction cannot be treated as harassment since it is not a transfer — the petitioner was always posted with the 97th Battalion and merely attached to the 25th for the GSFC — leaving him no case to assail the movement. No decision can be taken on an oral announcement; should any retrial commence and prove contrary to law, legal remedies would lie open. Subject thereto, Article 226 jurisdiction was not exercised and the writ was disposed of, with directions to communicate the S. 113 revision decision and to furnish the GSFC/revision-reference documents within two weeks; remedies and liberty to re-approach the Court reserved.

$~23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 17332/2025 & CM APPL. 71332/2025

MAHENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dheeraj Jani, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sukrit Seth, SPC with Mr. Arvind, GP for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

ORDER (ORAL)

% 14.11.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioner is originally posted with the 97^th Battalion of the BSF which is located in Tripura. As he was facing trial by a General Security Force Court¹ , being conducted in Delhi, he was attached with the 25^th Battalion at Delhi. The trial at the GSFC has concluded and the GSFC has returned its findings, though Mr. Dheeraj Jani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings are yet to be confirmed by the Confirming Authority.

2. Inasmuch as the trial is concluded, the petitioner has been directed to move back to his parent Battalion, i.e. the 97^th Battalion at Tripura.

1 “GSFC” hereafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 17332/2025 Signing Date:21.11.2025 11:48:20

Page 1 of 3

3. The petitioner has sought to challenge the said decision and terms it as harassment.

4. We do not see how a direction to report back to his parent Battalion can be treated as harassment. This is not a transfer. The petitioner was always posted with the 97^th Battalion at Tripura. He was merely attached with the 25^th Battalion at Delhi for conducting the GSFC. The trial by the GSFC stands concluded. Even as per the averments in the writ petition, the GSFC passed a reasoned judgment on 27 September 2024, directing acquittal/exoneration of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Confirming Authority, on 28 June 2025, referred the decision of the GSFC for revision under Section 113 of the BSF Act, 1968. The Revisionary Authority, as per the writ petition, again found the petitioner not guilty by order dated 7 July 2025.

5. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that the petitioner has no case to assail his movement back to Tripura, to his parent Battalion.

6. Mr. Dheeraj Jani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his Commandant orally announced that the petitioner will be subjected to re-trial after his transfer back to Tripura.

7. We are sanguine that no decision can be taken by the respondents on an oral announcement. In case, any retrial of the petitioner commences and in case, such retrial is contrary to the law, it would always be open to the petitioner to avail legal remedies in that

regard.

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 17332/2025 Signing Date:21.11.2025 11:48:20

Page 2 of 3

8. Mr. Dheeraj Jani, appearing for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the decision dated 7 July 2025 of the Revisionary Authority finding him not guilty was oral. We direct the respondents to communicate to the petitioner the decision on his revision petition under Section 113 of the BSF Act. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved thereby, his remedies in law shall remain reserved.

9. We also direct that in case, any documents pertaining to the decision of the GSFC and the reference of the matter to the Revisionary Authority have not been provided to the petitioner, they would be provided to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

10. Subject to the above, we see no reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this writ petition. It is accordingly disposed of, reserving liberty with the petitioner to re-approach the Court in light of the observations made hereinabove at an appropriate stage.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J

NOVEMBER 14, 2025/pa

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 17332/2025 Signing Date:21.11.2025 11:48:20

Page 3 of 3