Policy Decision Should Be Left To Govt In National Security Matters: Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Challenging 'Agnipath' Scheme

Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioners have not advanced any tangible reason warranting interference by this Court in the Agnipath Scheme.

The Court observed that the method of recruitment to the Indian army was a matter concerning policy decisions which should be left to the government to decide, as the same affects national security. It further held that Courts cannot interfere in policy decisions of the government as long as there was no infringement of fundamental rights.

“The issue raised by the petitioners is one concerning the method of recruitment to the Indian Armed Forces. It is a sensitive issue. In matters concerning national security, policy decision should be left to the Government. So long as the decision of the Government does not infringe fundamental rights of citizens, the Courts have no reason to interfere. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government, the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible.”

The petitioners had applied for recruitment in the Indian army based on the 2020 notification. In 2022, the Central government cancelled the recruitment process and issued Agnipath scheme for recruitment to military service for youth for 4 years. Thus, the writ petition was filed challenging Recruitment Rally Notification for appointment as Agniveer General Duty, Agniveer Technical, Agniveer Clerk / Store Keeper Technical and Agniveer Personnel.

The Counsel for the petitioners Advocates B Vinod, I V Pramod, Saira Souraj P, Sajeena Abdu T K submitted that they had undergone medical tests and had a legitimate expectation to be recruited into the Indian army. It was argued that abandonment of the recruitment process and enlisting them for four years temporarily as Agniveers was illegal and arbitrary. It was also contended that the Angipath scheme was unscientific and the government has not considered its social impact on the lives of youths. Further, it was submitted that Agniveers will find it difficult to find employment and marriage after a temporary job of four years.

Deputy Solicitor General of India Manu S submitted that the Agnipath scheme was formulated to manage the peculiar border situation and to prevent infiltration through the borders. It was submitted that the Indian army needs agile and physically fit youth to protect the borders. It was also argued that the Agnipath scheme was based on a short-term military engagement concept called 'intake and retention' model followed in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and France.

The Court found that the Agnipath Scheme was notified in 2022 to enable youth to join military services for four years. It took note of the fact that after service of four years, 25 per cent of Agniveers will be recruited to the Indian army. It also noted that all Agniveers will be provided with a skill certificate using which they could apply for other jobs in government and private sectors.

The Court stated that the central government has formulated the scheme after studying the benefits of short-term military engagement programs followed in other countries.

It also relied upon State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash (2005), Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2016) and State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan (2022) to state that Courts should refrain from interfering in policy matters which might have a cascading effect.

Additionally, the Court noted that participation in the recruitment process would not confer any right on the candidates and that there was no violation of any legitimate expectations.

It also stated that the age limit for recruitment as Agniveers was reduced from 21 years to 17 ½ years by the government on consideration of many factors including the challenges at the borders and on seeing young men serving in forces in other countries.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 743

Case title: Rahul Subhash v Union of India

Case number: W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment