Amenability of Article 311(2)(c) dismissal orders to judicial review in national security matters referred to Full Bench.

The applicant, an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer (ACIO) in the Intelligence Bureau (IB), was recruited in 2014 and posted to SIB Bengaluru

Following an assignment in 2019, he was allegedly interrogated and subsequently transferred with retrospective effect.

He was placed under suspension on 24.01.2020, which was extended periodically for 375 days without the issuance of a charge sheet

On 03.02.2021, the respondents dismissed the applicant from service under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India, which dispenses with a departmental inquiry in the interest of the security of the State

The applicant challenged the dismissal and suspension orders, alleging mala fides, bias, and violation of natural justice, citing a coordinate bench decision in Rajiv Chaudhary v. Cabinet Secretariat (OA No. 1993/2016)

The respondents contended that the dismissal followed recommendations from a Committee of Advisors and the satisfaction of the President of India regarding national security implications

1. Whether an order of dismissal passed under sub-clause (c) to the second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is amenable to judicial review

2. Whether the procedural safeguards for invoking jurisdiction under Article 311(2)(c) were observed in the instant case

3. Whether adverse inputs involving security implications, once examined by a Committee of Advisors and the President, can be subject to judicial scrutiny

Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to dismiss a government servant without inquiry if satisfied that such an inquiry is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State

Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), establishing that while the "finality" of the authority's decision is not absolute, the scope of judicial review is limited to examining mala fides or irrelevant considerations

Doctrine of Judicial Discipline and Stare Decisis, as reiterated in Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Guruswamy (2021), which mandates that a bench of co-equal strength must refer a matter to a larger bench if it disagrees with a previous coordinate bench decision

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s reliance on Rajiv Chaudhary, where a coordinate bench held that Article 311(2)(c) orders are justiciable if procedural safeguards are bypassed

However, the current Bench expressed a differing view, questioning whether judicial review can extend to the merits of "adverse inputs" involving national security that have already been vetted by a Committee of Advisors and the President

The Bench noted that while Tulsiram Patel allows review on limited grounds, the sensitive nature of Intelligence Bureau operations and the specialized review process involving a Committee of Advisors create a high threshold

Invoking the principles of judicial propriety, the Bench concluded that rather than delivering a conflicting judgment, the discrepancy between its view and the Rajiv Chaudhary precedent required a reference to a higher authority

The Bench referred the case to the Hon’ble Chairman for the constitution of a Full Bench to adjudicate the specific question: "Whether judicial review is amenable to the adverse inputs having security implications examined by a Committee of Advisors and thereafter placed before the Hon’ble President and the order is passed under Article 311 2(c)?"

The O.A. and associated MAs were disposed of for the purpose of this reference