A pending UAPA trial and subsisting national-security dismissal preclude removal from the police OGW list.

The petitioner challenged a police status report dated 22 July 2026 that listed him as an Over Ground Worker (OGW). He alleged that his name had been removed from the OGW list in 2021 and re-entered in 2022.

An FIR under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) had been registered against him; a challan was presented and the criminal case remained pending. Separately, the Government terminated his services under Article 311(2), proviso (c), of the Constitution, on national-security grounds. His challenge to that termination was pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu.

Whether the Court could direct removal of the petitioner’s name from the police list of OGWs while the UAPA proceedings and challenge to his service termination remained pending.

Whether the petitioner’s inclusion in the OGW list could be challenged on the basis that his name had previously been removed and that the listing had adverse consequences for him.

The Court referred to Article 311(2), proviso (c), of the Constitution, which permits dismissal of a government employee without an inquiry where the President or Governor is satisfied that an inquiry is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

The Court stated no separate statutory test or precedent governing OGW-list inclusion. It treated the petitioner’s alleged involvement in terrorist-related offences and the security basis for his dismissal as matters pending determination before the criminal court and the CAT, respectively.

The Court considered the petitioner’s pending UAPA trial relevant to the allegation that he had aided or assisted militants, and the pending CAT proceedings relevant to the security-risk basis for his dismissal.

Because those questions had not yet been determined by the competent forums, the Court held that it could not resolve them in these proceedings. It further reasoned that, while the criminal trial and service challenge remained pending, the petitioner could not obtain removal of his name from the OGW list; he could challenge the listing if he succeeded in those proceedings.

It left the petitioner at liberty to challenge the inclusion if he succeeds in those proceedings.