Disposed

Shruti Vyas & Ors. v. Lieutenant General Vps Kaushik, Adjutant General

Delhi HC10 Dec 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1892/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a writ judgment directing their consideration against unfilled vacancies for women's army induction. The Army confirmed they would be considered for the next SSCW(Non-Tech)-37 course in April 2026; the petition was not pressed and disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

None; petition disposed of as not pressed with liberty to take steps available in law upon non-compliance.

Shruti Vyas & Ors. Vs Lieutenant General Vps Kaushik… — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~86

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1892/2025

¶4

SHRUTI VYAS & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta, Ms. Shruti Jain, Ms. Sansriti Trivedi and Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

LIEUTENANT GENERAL VPS KAUSHIK, ADJUTANT GENERAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr. Rudra Paliwal, GP with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Ankush Kapoor and Mr. Vishwadeep, Advocates with Major Anish Muralidhar, Army.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶8

O R D E R % 10.12.2025

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

The present petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeks the following prayers:-

¶11

“(a) Take cognizance of and initiate proceedings for contempt against the Respondent / Alleged Contemnor for noncompliance with this Hon’ble Court’s judgment and order dated 16.09.2025 in WP(C) No. 1106/2024;

¶12

(b) Direct the Respondent / Alleged Contemnor to issue the necessary joining instructions to the Petitioners for the next Short Service Commission Women (Non-Technical) training course, scheduled to commence around February 2026 / March 2026;

¶13

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:22:50

¶16

(d) pass such other or further order(s) as it may deem fit.”

¶17

Learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 1106/2024, had passed the following directions:-

¶18

“ Conclusion

¶19

We, therefore, direct that the petitioners be considered against the 62 unfilled vacancies of men, as there could have been no limitation on the number of women who could be entitled to recruitment against the corps and services identified in para 45 of Arshnoor Kaur. Needless to say, however, the petitioners would not be entitled for induction into any other corps or services, other than the corps or services, which are identified in para 45 of the decision in Arshnoor Kaur.

¶20

11. A closing caveat

¶21

11.1 Maj. Anish Muralidhar, who ably assisted the learned ASG and Mr. Swain and has, we must acknowledge, been of considerable assistance to us in ensuring dispensation of justice in the present roster, points out that the actual identification of the streams to which the candidates would be deployed or posted takes place only after training. As such, it is submitted that, before training commences, it is not possible to identify as to whether the petitioners would in fact be suitable for deployment against one of the ten corps or service identified in para 45 of Arshnoor Kaur.

¶22

11.2 Though we feel that this is an aspect which should have been taken up before the Supreme Court when it rendered Arshnoor Kaur, Mr. Indra Sen Singh also agrees that the right of the petitioners for deployment would only be against one or more of the ten categories of corps and services notified under Section 12 of the Army Act and identified in para 45 of Arshnoor Kaur.

¶23

11.3 We, therefore, clarify that the entitlement of the petitioners to appointment and deployment against the remaining 62 unfilled vacancies of men would be conditional upon their being found suitable for deployment against one or more of the identified corps and services identified in para 45 of the decision in Arshnoor Kaur.

¶24

As one of the issues that may arise is regarding the petitioners

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:22:50

¶27

satisfying the age requirement for the post, we clarify that the benefits of this judgment would be available to those petitioners who were within the prescribed age on the date of declaration of the result.

¶28

If there are any pre-training formalities such as medical clearance, which are required to be fulfilled, it goes without saying that the petitioners would be required to fulfil them, before undergoing training.

¶29

Needless to say, should the petitioners qualify and be selected, they would be entitled to all other consequential reliefs as available in law.

¶30

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, on instructions from Major Anish Muralidhar, submits that a communication dated 10.12.2025 had been sent to counsel for the petitioners, with regard to the petitioners, i.e. , Ms. Shruti Vyas, Ms. Aishani Chand and Ms. Alisha Saini, wherein it has been recorded as under:-

¶32

“1.Refer your Notice dated 07 Dec 2025 with respect to implementation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dated 16 Sep 2025 in the above mentioned writ petition.

¶33

2.The judgment was passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 16 Sep 2025 and since the induction process of SSCW(Non Tech)-36 course had commenced, candidates could not be inducted in SSCW(Non Tech)-36 course. The petitioners shall be considered for induction in the next course i.e. SSCW(Non Tech)-37 scheduled to commence in Apr 2026, as per directions of the Hon ble Court”

¶34

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners confirms the aforesaid.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on instructions from Major Anish Muralidhar, submits that the petitioners shall be considered for induction in the next course, in terms of the aforesaid communication, subject to the directions given by learned Division Bench.

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:22:50

¶38

In view of the above, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not wish to press the present petition.

¶39

The present petition is disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps as available in law in case of noncompliance.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶42

DECEMBER 10, 2025 /sn/db

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:22:50

Shruti Vyas & Ors. v. Lieutenant General Vps Kaushik, Adjutant General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shruti Vyas & Ors. v. Lieutenant General Vps Kaushik, Adjutant General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupa Suri Vs Sushil Suri, Director & Ors.

Anu Bansal Vs Kamaljeet Singh & Ors.

Naghma Anjum Vs Mohd Altaph

Manoj Saklani Vs Mr. Ajay Kumar Yerpude & Anr.

Aman Singh Vs Amit Saxena

Mohit Mann Vs Sh. Govind Mohan & Ors.

Aghum Bahl Vs Sanjeev Kumar Mittal & Ors.

Dhirender Nath Puri Vs Manasi Sahay Thakur, Land and Development Officer

Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.

Anu Bansal Vs Kamaljeet Singh & Ors.

Naghma Anjum Vs Mohd Altaph

Iqra Parveen Vs Amjad Khan

Anil Kapoor & Ors. Vs Sh. Krishna Mohan Uppu, Commissioner & Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Goi and Ors.