The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable who had been diagnosed with acute psychosis, ruling that disciplinary action against a person suffering from mental illness cannot be invalidated unless there is a medical declaration certifying that the individual is unfit to stand trial. The Court emphasized that the mere presence of a psychiatric disorder is not sufficient to nullify disciplinary proceedings.
The case arose after the constable was accused of entering the residence of a fellow serviceman within the battalion premises and misbehaving with his wife. The Security Force Summary Court (SSFC) conducted proceedings and found him guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of a woman. Considering the serious nature of the misconduct, especially within the disciplined environment of the force, the constable was dismissed from service.
Before the commencement of the trial, the constable underwent a medical examination approximately an hour prior to the proceedings, and the examining doctor declared him fit to face trial. During the trial itself, he actively participated by cross-examining prosecution witnesses and producing defence witnesses. His conduct demonstrated that he was aware of the charges against him and capable of defending himself.
Challenging the disciplinary action, the constable argued that his psychiatric condition rendered him unfit for trial. He claimed that the medical examination carried out before the proceedings was not conducted by a specialist and therefore lacked credibility. It was further argued that the authorities had failed to follow procedures under the BSF Act that deal with personnel diagnosed with mental illnesses.
The High Court, however, dismissed these contentions and upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority. It observed that despite being diagnosed with psychosis, there was no medical opinion stating that the constable was of unsound mind or incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings. Simply being placed in a low medical category was not equivalent to a medical declaration of unfitness. The Court further held that his active involvement in the proceedings, including cross-examining witnesses and producing evidence, clearly indicated that he had the mental capacity to comprehend the charges and defend himself.
The Court highlighted that for a disciplinary trial to be invalidated on grounds of mental illness, there must be a clear medical declaration confirming unfitness. In the absence of such a declaration, the existence of a mental health condition alone cannot be used to question the validity of the trial. It was also noted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, with no procedural lapses or miscarriage of justice.
Given the gravity of the misconduct and the context in which it occurred—inside the battalion premises and involving the wife of a fellow serviceman—the Court held that the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing strict punishment. Maintaining discipline and trust within the force was described as paramount. Consequently, the High Court upheld the constable’s dismissal and dismissed his writ petition.
This ruling reinforces the principle that while mental health conditions must be considered, disciplinary and criminal proceedings cannot be nullified unless a competent medical authority certifies that the accused is incapable of standing trial. It underscores the balance between ensuring fairness for individuals with psychiatric conditions and preserving institutional discipline in security forces.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.