Writ challenge against GSFC findings is premature prior to confirmation and exhaustion of statutory remedies.

The Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force (BSF), was accused of sexually harassing a female constable in January 2025

An initial Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was annulled due to improper constitution (chaired by a male), and a second ICC was reconstituted in May 2025

The reconstituted ICC found the Petitioner blameworthy, leading to a Record of Evidence (RoE) and the convening of a General Security Force Court (GSFC)

The GSFC concluded its proceedings and passed findings and a sentence between January and February 2026

On 23.02.2026, the Petitioner filed a statutory pre-confirmation petition under Section 117(1) of the BSF Act, which is currently pending

The Petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash the ICC findings, the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2026, and the GSFC proceedings, alleging the ICC was improperly constituted (coram non judice) and that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable or premature given that a statutory pre-confirmation petition is pending before the competent authority?

2. Whether the constitution and findings of the ICC were legally sustainable under Section 4 of the POSH Act?

Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), which mandates the specific composition of an ICC

Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, where Section 117(1) allows for a pre-confirmation petition and Section 117(2) provides for a post-confirmation petition against the findings or sentence of a GSFC

The Court followed the established judicial principle that writ interference is generally uncalled for until a final order is passed in a proceeding, especially when statutory alternative remedies are being pursued

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s challenge to the ICC’s constitution and the GSFC’s findings is currently being adjudicated through a statutory pre-confirmation petition

The Petitioner’s counsel conceded that the grounds urged in the writ petition—procedural lapses, coram non judice, and violation of natural justice—are identical to those raised in the pending statutory petition

The Court reasoned that since the findings of the GSFC are yet to be confirmed by the competent authority, the Petitioner’s grievances are at an intermediate stage

The Court distinguished the Petitioner’s cited precedents, such as Union of India v. L.D. Balam Singh, by noting that those cases involved challenges to confirmed sentences, whereas the present petition was filed before confirmation

The Court held that the authority considering the pre-confirmation petition must be allowed to pass a reasoned order on the Petitioner’s pleas before judicial review is invoked

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no interference is warranted at this stage

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to raise all contentions if and when the findings of the GSFC are confirmed

The pending pre-confirmation petition is expected to be decided by the competent authority by way of a reasoned order