Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
ITBP personnel's request for re-deployment in Afghanistan is denied by the Delhi High Court, which says it can't intervene in administrative decisions. The two female constables in front of the Court said they were entitled to a two-year stay in Afghanistan but had been reassigned to India too soon. The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a challenge to the transfer of two women constables of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) from the Indian Mission in Afghanistan to India, stating that under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the Court cannot interfere with the ITBP's administrative decisions. [Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) v. Raji Delhi & Co.] The two constables had petitioned the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, to be re-deployed in Afghanistan as security assistants. On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that they were posted to the Indian embassy in August 2020 for a two-year term. They were, however, reassigned to India on June 13, 2021. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to a two-year stay in Afghanistan and that they were only re-deployed to India after 10 months of service. It was further claimed that the petitioners were required to be stationed in Kabul for the purpose of frisking children and women visiting the Indian embassy, in addition to security reasons. The petitioners claimed that they were properly trained for these roles and that they were arbitrarily de-inducted from Afghanistan while “non-general duty” women personnel, who were not trained to perform such security functions, were kept. They also asked the ITBP to compile a list of individuals, including the petitioners, who had served a minimum term of service in Afghanistan in ascending order for re-deployment purposes, in place of officials who had served the maximum period of service, as and when vacancies arise. They also asked the High Court to issue orders preventing their diplomatic passports and visas from being suspended. According to the ITBP's counsel, three women constables (general duty) continue to work at the Indian embassy in Kabul. He pointed out that these constables were doing the same functions as the petitioners and had served in Afghanistan for a shorter period of time than the petitioners. As a result, the ITBP argued that they were required to remain in Afghanistan under the terms of the policy document. The Court, on the other hand, turned down the ITBP officers' appeal, stating that the problems highlighted were essentially administrative in nature.
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.