‘Isn’t arbitrary’, SC junks plea challenging Agnipath scheme

New Delhi, April 10: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea against the Agnipath scheme, to induct youth into all three-armed forces divisions for a period of four years. The top court observed that the scheme is not arbitrary and that promissory estoppel is always subject to overarching public interest.

Advocate M.L. Sharma submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that it should have been passed by Parliament and it should not have been brought as a scheme and it will attract Article 77 as well as Article 107. “My question is simply, unless Parliament approves it. It cannot be done,” said Sharma.

After hearing Sharma’s submissions, the bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, dismissed his petition.

In February, the Delhi High Court dismissed the pleas challenging the Centre’s Agnipath scheme concluding that it was introduced in national interest and to make sure that the Armed Forces are well equipped.

The apex court Monday also took up another plea seeking directions to complete the recruitment processes initiated to the Indian Army and Air Force, which were discontinued after the ‘Agnipath’ scheme was announced in June last year.

A counsel submitted that he is not challenging the Agnipath scheme and that the matter was confined to the completion of the previously notified recruitment processes to Army and Air Force. He further added that exams were postponed many times citing Covid and suddenly, in June, the Agnipath scheme was announced and for the Air Force, the exams were held but the results were not published.

Declining to entertain the plea, the bench said that the candidates have no vested right to seek the completion of recruitment process. The counsel insisted that the Agnipath scheme will not be affected even if these people are recruited.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, submitted that the high court’s judgment has dealt with these issues in detail.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a petitioner in another matter, submitted that this is regarding the Air Force regular recruitment and added that there was a written test followed by a medical test and everything was done, thereafter a provisional list was published showing the ranks, etc.

“For more than one year, every three months they kept saying that appointment letters are going to be issued…in the meantime, they did what is called rally recruitments for the same posts which they called fasttrack recruitments. They claimed that they were for addressing demographic balance…those rally recruitments happened after they said they already thought of Agnipath scheme,” submitted Bhushan.

Identifying the issues, Bhushan said first is promissory estoppel, they published a list after a two-year process; repeatedly told people that appointment letters will be issued and they were delayed due to Covid; and, then they go ahead with these fasttrack recruitments for the same posts.

The bench observed that the scheme is not arbitrary and that promissory estoppel is always subject to overarching public interest. “It is not a contract matter, where promissory estoppel in public was applied. It is a public employment. The question of applying this principle will not arise in this case,” the bench told Bhushan. However, Bhushan insisted that the court should hear his matter.

The bench agreed to hear Bhushan’s matter separately on April 17, but dismissed other two petitions.