Air Force officer sought directions for expeditious disposal of her AFT application, return of her mobile phone, consideration for Permanent Commission without Court of Inquiry findings, and compensation. The Court found no basis in writ jurisdiction for these reliefs and disposed of the petition without prejudice to the AFT proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SQN LDR SWATI PRAKASH
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kavish Aggarwala, Mr. Shubham Kumar, Mr Vishal Kumar Singh, Mr Uttam Kumar, Mr Ritesh Singh, Mr Suraj Pathak, Mr Preetam Runthala, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy SPC with Mr Adil Hussain Taqvi, Ms Usha Jamnal, Ms Harshita Chaturvedi, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
%
JUDGMENT (ORAL) 08.05.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The prayed clause in this writ petition reads thus :
“In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned and the ground raise in this writ Petition the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present writ by passing the following directions:
A. Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal to immediately list and expeditiously hear and dispose of the petitioner’s Original Application, which has been pending for over two years
W.P.(C) 6123/2025
Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 15:46:01
and not taken up for hearing for the past eight months;
B. Direct the Respondents to return of the Petitioner's personal mobile phone, which was taken by the Petitioner’s husband on 08.03.2023;
C . Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for the Board of Permanent Commission without taking into consideration the findings of the Court of Inquiry.
D. Direct the Respondents to award exemplary compensation to the Petitioner for the illegal, arbitrary, and unauthorized seizure and continued detention of her mobile phone without her consent, which amounts to a gross violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and due to which the Petitioner has suffered irreparable loss, hardship, and prejudice in both her personal and professional life;”
2. Apropos prayer A, Ms. Rudy, learned counsel for the respondents, points out that the OA filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is listed on 23 May 2025. Accordingly, no orders are called for, on this prayer. Even otherwise, it is not possible for this Court to micromanage the working of the Tribunal. We are aware of the quantum of work with which the Tribunal is dealing.
3. Prayer B seeks a mandamus from the Court to the respondents to return the petitioner’s cell phone, allegedly taken from her by her husband. We do not seek how such a relief can be granted in a writ petition.
4. Prayer C is for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for the Board of Permanent Commission, without taking
W.P.(C) 6123/2025
Page 2 of 3
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 15:46:01
into consideration the findings of the Court of Inquiry1 . Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show us any law under which the petitioner can be directed to be considered for Permanent Commission without taking into consideration the findings of the COI.
5. This, however, would not preclude the petitioner from urging the said issue before an appropriate forum, at the appropriate stage.
6. Prayer D also cannot be granted in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. We, therefore, regret our inability to come to the aid of the petitioner.
8. Needless to say, however, this order would not, in any way, influence the proceedings before the AFT, which would be decided on their own merits.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MAY 8, 2025/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 “COI”, hereinafter
W.P.(C) 6123/2025
Page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 15:46:01
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court could direct the AFT to expedite hearing of the petitioner's pending OA.
Whether mandamus could issue for return of the petitioner's mobile phone taken by her husband.
Whether the petitioner could be directed to be considered for Permanent Commission ignoring the Court of Inquiry findings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SQN LDR SWATI PRAKASH
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
C. HARI SHANKAR
AJAY DIGPAUL
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
