DELHI HIGH COURT: FULL BENCH TO EXAMINE TERMINATION DISPUTE OF TRANSGENDER INDIAN NAVY SAILOR

Fact of the Case

A sailor in the Indian Navy was discharged from service in October 2017. The official reason given was that the rules did not permit the continued employment of a person who had undergone a gender transition and was medically placed in a low medical category. The sailor had earlier informed the authorities about experiencing gender dysphoria and later underwent sex reassignment surgery in a private hospital. After this, the Navy placed the sailor under observation and eventually removed them from service under the rule of “Services No Longer Required.” The sailor challenged this discharge before the Delhi High Court and also questioned the validity of certain provisions of the Navy Act and related regulations, which they claimed failed to recognize transgender identity.

Issue Before the Court

The central issue before the Court was not only about the legality of the discharge but also about whether the Delhi High Court was the correct forum to hear the case. The Court had to decide whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) should be the first body to hear such challenges, especially when questions about the validity of statutory provisions of the Navy Act were raised.

Explanation of Complex Terms

“Services No Longer Required” (SNLR) is an administrative method through which the Navy can discharge a sailor if they are considered unsuitable for service, either due to misconduct or medical reasons. The word “vires” is a legal term that means the constitutional validity or legal strength of a law. The “Armed Forces Tribunal” (AFT) is a special court created to hear disputes about service conditions of members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner argued that the discharge was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it was linked to their gender identity and medical status after transition. It was also argued that the AFT does not have the power to decide on the validity of parliamentary laws like the Navy Act, so the High Court should directly hear the case. According to the petitioner, tribunals created by special laws cannot exercise the same powers as High Courts, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.

Respondent’s Contentions

The government argued that the discharge was not solely due to the petitioner’s gender transition but also because of repeated misconduct, including multiple instances of absence without leave. It was submitted that the sailor had been warned several times but continued to show indiscipline. The respondents also raised a preliminary objection, stating that the AFT was the proper forum to approach since it had been given wide jurisdiction over service matters in the armed forces.

Relevant Case Law and Law Discussion

The Court referred to important judgments such as L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), which held that tribunals can examine the validity of statutory provisions but their decisions are subject to review by High Courts. It also considered Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (2023), where the Supreme Court clarified that tribunals function as courts of first instance, while judicial review powers of High Courts remain intact. On the other hand, the petitioner relied on earlier cases such as Cellular Operators Association (2003) and Bal Krishna Ram (2020) to argue that only constitutional courts like High Courts can strike down parliamentary laws.

Court Observations

The Court noted that the AFT is structured with both judicial and administrative members, including retired judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court. Because of this, it is competent to decide complex questions, including constitutional ones, except when the validity of its own parent law, the AFT Act, is under challenge. The Court also recognized that if litigants are allowed to bypass the AFT and directly approach High Courts, it would go against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier constitutional rulings. However, since there were conflicting judgments about the AFT’s jurisdiction, the Court felt that the matter needed further clarification by a larger bench.

Court Directions/Judgment

The Delhi High Court did not decide the case on merits. Instead, it referred three key questions to a Full Bench for decision. First, whether the AFT can rule on the constitutional validity of provisions in the Navy Act. Second, whether the earlier judgment in the Neelam Chahar case should be interpreted as giving the AFT such powers. Third, whether this principle would also apply to other tribunals created by special statutes outside Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution. The case has now been placed before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to constitute a Full Bench for a final ruling on these important questions.

DATE OF DECISION

26.09.2025

CASE NUMBER

W.P.(C) 9535/2017