The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to expunge biased entries in an Army officer’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2018–19, citing mala fide intent by the reporting officer. Extending the relief, the Court also ordered expungement of the 2017–18 ACR, holding that both reports suffered from the same arbitrariness. It directed reconsideration of the officer’s promotion, emphasizing that concealed adverse remarks without justification violate principles of fairness under Army Order 02/2016. The judgment reinforces judicial scrutiny over subjective assessments in service matters to prevent career prejudice.
Facts Of The Case:
Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary, a decorated officer with 12 awards including two Vishisht Seva Medals, was commissioned into the Indian Army in 1991. During his tenure as Commandant of 3 Advance Base Workshop (2017–2019), his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were assessed by the fourth respondent, who allegedly held a grudge against him. Despite his exemplary record, the appellant received lukewarm ACRs for 2017–18 and 2018–19, which he claimed were biased and premeditated. These reports adversely impacted his promotion prospects to Major General.
The appellant filed statutory complaints, which were rejected, followed by a non-statutory complaint in 2021, also dismissed. He then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), seeking expungement of the disputed ACRs and reconsideration of his promotion. The AFT partially allowed his plea, expunging the 2018–19 ACR’s figurative ratings but upheld the 2017–18 report. Dissatisfied, the appellant sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the ACRs and found that the fourth respondent had deliberately downgraded the appellant in non-disclosed sections while maintaining favorable ratings in visible portions—a tactic masking bias. Holding both ACRs tainted by arbitrariness, the Court expanded the AFT’s relief, ordering expungement of the 2017–18 ACR as well. It directed the Army to reconsider his promotion, safeguarding his career rights. The judgment underscores judicial vigilance against subjective assessments in service matters.
Procedural History:
The case originated when Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary challenged two adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 2017–18 and 2018–19 before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) after his statutory and non-statutory complaints were rejected by the Army authorities. The AFT, in its order dated 26th April 2023, partially allowed his plea by expunging biased entries in the 2018–19 ACR but upheld the 2017–18 report. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, which was rejected by the AFT on 25th May 2023.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, which examined the procedural fairness of the ACRs and the AFT’s decision. The Court found that both ACRs suffered from the same arbitrariness, as the reporting officer had intentionally lowered ratings in non-disclosed sections while maintaining favorable remarks in visible portions. Disagreeing with the AFT’s selective relief, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of expungement to include the 2017–18 ACR and directed the Army to reconsider the appellant’s promotion within three months. The judgment, delivered on 14th May 2025, reinforced judicial oversight over subjective assessments in military service records.
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while adjudicating Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary’s case. It noted that the fourth respondent, as the Initiating Officer (IO), had maintained favorable ratings in the disclosed sections of the ACRs while deliberately assigning lower grades in the confidential portions—a tactic that masked bias and violated principles of transparency. The Court emphasized that such arbitrary assessments, especially when concealed from the officer, undermine fairness in career progression.
The Bench highlighted that the Tribunal had correctly identified mala fide intent in the 2018–19 ACR but erred in not extending the same scrutiny to the 2017–18 report, despite both being authored by the same IO under similar circumstances. The Court reaffirmed that subjective evaluations must be justified and cannot be used to prejudice an officer’s career surreptitiously. Citing Army Order 02/2016, it stressed that confidential remarks must align with demonstrated performance and cannot be contradictory or unsubstantiated.
Ultimately, the Court held that such biased reporting distorts merit-based promotions and directed systemic safeguards to prevent abuse of discretion in ACRs. The judgment serves as a precedent for judicial intervention in cases where subjective assessments lack objectivity or fairness.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary’s appeal and modified the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order by granting additional relief. The Court directed the expungement of figurative ratings by the Initiating Officer (IO) and Reviewing Officer (RO) in the Qualities to Assess Potential (QsAPs) and Box gradings of the ACR for the period December 2017 to June 2018, in line with its earlier order regarding the subsequent ACR. The Court mandated that the appellant’s case for promotion to Major General be reconsidered within three months, taking into account the expunged records. If the appellant had already superannuated, the authorities were ordered to consider his case for notional promotion and consequential monetary benefits. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih on May 14, 2025, emphasized that the Army’s assessment system must maintain fairness and transparency, particularly when confidential remarks could adversely impact an officer’s career progression. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, reinforcing judicial oversight over arbitrary administrative decisions in armed forces personnel matters.
Case Details:
Case Title: Brig Sandeep Chaudhary vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 685 (Non-Reportable) Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 4655 of 2023 Date of Judgment: May 14, 2025 Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here