Search for an article

See also  Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable for Missing Persons Without Unlawful Detention: Madhya Pradesh HC

Select a plan

Choose a plan from below, subscribe, and get access to our exclusive articles!

Monthly plan

$
13
$
0
billed monthly

Yearly plan

$
100
$
0
billed yearly

All plans include

  • Donec sagittis elementum
  • Cras tempor massa
  • Mauris eget nulla ut
  • Maecenas nec mollis
  • Donec feugiat rhoncus
  • Sed tristique laoreet
  • Fusce luctus quis urna
  • In eu nulla vehicula
  • Duis eu luctus metus
  • Maecenas consectetur
  • Vivamus mauris purus
  • Aenean neque ipsum
See also  Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable for Missing Persons Without Unlawful Detention: Madhya Pradesh HC
HomeNewsDelhi High Court Slams HIV Discrimination in Landmark Service Termination Case

Delhi High Court Slams HIV Discrimination in Landmark Service Termination Case

Published on

Latest articles

- Advertisement -

New Delhi, March 30, 2025: The Delhi High Court has declared that terminating the service of personnel solely on the grounds of being HIV positive constitutes discrimination, violating Section 3 of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017.

The verdict came while adjudicating a batch of writ petitions challenging orders that denied promotions to two personnel and cancelled the appointment of another due to their HIV-positive status.

The court highlighted the need for reasonable accommodation and directed authorities to reconsider the cases, marking a progressive step in safeguarding the rights of HIV-positive individuals in employment.

Background of the Case

The petitions arose from decisions affecting three individuals employed in paramilitary forces.

In the first case, Hoshiar Singh, a Constable (Radio Operator) with the Border Security Force (BSF) since 1989, was denied promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in 2022 despite fulfilling career prerequisites.

Diagnosed with AIDS and mediastinal tuberculosis in Cooch Behar, Singh was placed in a low medical category (SHAPE-II) and deemed “unfit” by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) due to his condition.

The second petitioner, enlisted as a Constable (Bugler) with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in 2005, faced a similar fate.

- Advertisement -

Despite completing the Head Constable Promotional Course, his promotion was stalled due to his permanent low medical category after being diagnosed HIV positive and undergoing Antiretroviral Therapy (ART).

In the third case, a petitioner offered an appointment as Constable (General Duty) with the BSF in 2022 was removed from service during his probationary training after being found HIV positive.

See also  Karnataka HC: Mere Raising of Voice Not an Offence Under Section 353 IPC

A Review Medical Board declared him “unfit,” leading to his termination under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act.

Court’s Reasoning and Directions

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, observed that denying promotions or terminating services solely based on HIV status infringes upon the anti-discrimination provisions of the HIV Act.

The court noted, “To terminate the service of such personnel only on the ground of being detected as HIV positive would result in discrimination, which is prohibited under Section 3 of the HIV Act.”

For the first two petitioners, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to constitute a Review DPC within eight weeks to reassess their promotions.

If found fit, they would receive consequential benefits, including notional seniority, though without backdated salary differences.

In the third case, the court mandated a reassessment of the petitioner’s medical condition within eight weeks, aligning with guidelines that only personnel in the P5 medical category (permanently unfit) can be invalidated from service.

- Advertisement -

The bench underscored the respondents’ obligation to provide “reasonable accommodation” to HIV-positive personnel, reinforcing the legal framework protecting their employment rights.

Legal Implications

The judgment aligns with India’s commitment to eliminating stigma and discrimination against HIV-positive individuals under the HIV Act.

Advocates Abhay Kr. Bhargava and Ankita Gautam, representing the petitioners, argued that HIV status alone cannot justify denying career progression or service retention.

The respondents, represented by Special Public Counsel Ajay Jain, Kavindra Gill, and Vivekanand Mishra, had relied on medical fitness standards, but the court found these insufficient to override statutory protections.

See also  Kerala High Court Orders Action Against Illegal Charges for ‘Pottukuthal’ Ritual at Sabarimala

Case Details

  • Cause Title: Hoshiar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2071-DB)
  • Petitioners: Hoshiar Singh and others
  • Respondents: Union of India, BSF, CRPF
  • Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur
  • Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Abhay Kr. Bhargava, Ankita Gautam, Satyarth Sinha, Harsh Gautam
  • Counsel for Respondents: SPCs Ajay Jain, Kavindra Gill, Vivekanand Mishra; Advocates N. Mishra, Manoj Kr. Gautam, Harshit Batra

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…

Rohit Belakud
Rohit Belakudhttp://thelegalqna.com
Advocate and SEO specialist committed to making legal knowledge accessible to all. As an advocate managing a law-focused website, I combine my legal expertise with advanced digital marketing strategies to enhance online visibility, drive engagement, and connect with audiences effectively. My unique blend of legal acumen and SEO skills enables me to deliver valuable, user-friendly content that resonates with readers and simplifies complex legal concepts.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest articles

More like this