Disciplinary Action Against BSF Constable Diagnosed With Psychosis Is Valid Unless Medically Declared Unfit For Trial: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices C.Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that in the absence of any medical opinion declaring him unfit for trial, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be invalidated particularly for an offence like the one in question, which “strikes at the very foundation of brotherhood that binds members of the Force”.

It 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.”

The court added that 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 question the institutional discipline that the Force is mandated to uphold.

The Petitioner was officially diagnosed with acute psychosis and was placed in a low medical category for a period of six weeks. During this period, a fellow Constable submitted a written complaint alleging that while he was on patrolling duty, the Petitioner entered his residence, misbehaved with his wife and took away some money.

Thereafter, a formal charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and he was subjected to medical examination approximately one hour before the commencement of the Summary Security Force Court proceedings. He was certified as medically fit to stand trial and was later found guilty on the charges.

The Reviewing Officer confirmed his conviction under Section 354 (outraging modesty) IPC and set aside the conviction under Section 380 (theft in a dwelling house) IPC. However, the sentence of dismissal was upheld, leading to filing of the present petition.

Petitioner claimed that despite his undisputed psychiatric condition, the Commandant proceeded to convene a Summary Security Force Court trial, relying on a general medical certificate issued 45 minutes prior to trial by a non-specialist, and without undertaking the mandatory procedures contemplated under the BSF Act.

The High Court however found that the Petitioner was referred to both civil and BSF medical facilities, and had undergone treatment for psychosis. It further said that merely being diagnosed with psychosis does not by itself render the entire Summary Security Force Court trial unlawful.

“The standard for disqualifying a person from facing disciplinary trial on the ground of mental illness must be rooted in the determination that the concerned 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 make the proceedings invalid. The record indicates that no such opinion of insanity or mental incapacity was issued by any medical authority at the time of trial,” the Court said.

It further noted that the petitioner participated in the trial, cross-examined witnesses, and produced two defence witnesses in support of his case.

“These proceedings were conducted in a manner consistent with prescribed procedure and do not reveal, on their face, any conduct by the petitioner that would suggest an inability to understand or respond to the charges framed against him,” the Court said.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Karn Deo Baghel and Mr. Shivam Choudhary, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Shravan Shukla, Mr. Yash Baraliya, Advs. with Mr. Paramveer Singh, Law Officer, BSF

Case title: Anil Kumar Upadhyay v UOI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 994

Case no.: W.P.(C) 1024/2010

Click here to read order