New Delhi, August 20, 2025
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable diagnosed with acute psychosis, after he was found guilty of outraging the modesty of a fellow constable’s wife inside battalion quarters.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul ruled that disciplinary action was justified given the gravity of the misconduct, and that the petitioner’s psychiatric condition, by itself, did not invalidate the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) proceedings.
The Court noted that the misconduct in question—outraging the modesty of a fellow constable’s wife within the battalion premises—directly undermined the brotherhood, trust, and institutional discipline central to the functioning of armed forces.
The bench observed:
“Having regard to the nature of the offence for which the petitioner was convicted, namely outraging the modesty of the wife of a fellow constable within the same battalion, we cannot ignore the grave implications such conduct has on the integrity, discipline, and mutual trust essential to the functioning of any armed force. If such acts, committed within the living quarters and directed towards the immediate family of a serving BSF personnel, are not met with the strictest disciplinary response, it would send an entirely wrong message and compromise the discipline the Force is mandated to uphold.”
The petitioner, Anil Kumar Upadhyay, had been diagnosed with acute psychosis and placed in a low medical category for six weeks. During this period, a fellow constable filed a complaint alleging that while he was on patrol duty, the petitioner entered his residence, misbehaved with his wife, and took away some money.
Following this, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and medically examined about an hour before his SSFC trial. He was certified medically fit to face proceedings, tried, and found guilty under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty of a woman), though the charge under Section 380 IPC (theft in a dwelling house) was later set aside at the review stage.
The SSFC imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, which was confirmed by the reviewing authority.
Through counsel, the petitioner argued that:
• His psychiatric condition rendered him unfit to stand trial.
• The SSFC proceedings were invalid since they were convened on the basis of a general medical certificate issued just 45 minutes before trial by a non-specialist.
• The Commandant failed to comply with the mandatory safeguards under the BSF Act regarding mentally ill personnel.
He relied on his psychiatric treatment history to contend that the trial was unfair and his dismissal disproportionate.
The High Court, however, rejected these arguments, noting that:
1. Medical Fitness at Trial: Records showed that the petitioner had been referred to both civil hospitals and BSF medical facilities and was treated for psychosis. But no medical authority ever declared him of unsound mind or incapable of comprehending proceedings. A mere “low medical category” tag did not mean unfitness to face trial.
2. Active Participation in Defence: The Court emphasized that the petitioner had actively engaged in the trial—he cross-examined prosecution witnesses and produced two defence witnesses. His conduct during proceedings demonstrated that he was aware of the charges and capable of defending himself.
3. Procedural Validity: The trial followed due procedure and showed no indication of prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
“The standard for disqualifying a person from facing disciplinary trial on the ground of mental illness must be rooted in a determination that the person was of unsound mind or incapable of comprehending the proceedings or defending himself. Merely being placed in a low medical category, without any medical opinion declaring the person unfit for trial, is not enough to invalidate proceedings.”
Given these findings, the Court upheld the punishment of dismissal, holding that the petitioner’s conduct, coupled with the sensitive context of the armed forces, fully justified the disciplinary penalty.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details
• Case Title: Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
• Case No.: W.P. (C) 1024/2010
• Counsel: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Karn Deo Baghel, Mr. Shivam Choudhary (for Petitioner); Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Shravan Shukla, Mr. Yash Baraliya, Advs. with Mr. Paramveer Singh, Law Officer, BSF (for Respondents).
