SC RULING ON AGNIPATH SCHEME

Copyright infringement not intended

Context: The Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging the Agnipath scheme.

Details

Background

Some of the petitioners were those who were shortlisted in previous Army and Air Force recruitment procedures.
An advocate for some of these candidates informed the Supreme Court that their names were on a provisional list for recruitment to the Air Force, but the recruitment process stopped when the Agnipath plan was announced.
They claimed that under the “law of promissory estoppel”, the government should be directed to complete the old process.
They said that the old recruitment process included a written exam, a physical test, and a medical exam, after which a provisional selection list with ranks was released.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel

About

Promissory estoppel is a legal notion that originated in contract law.
A legal contract demands that an agreement be established with sufficient consideration.
A claim of promissory estoppel simply prevents a "promisor" from withdrawing from an agreement because there is no "consideration."
The theory is utilised in court by a plaintiff (the person filing a civil action) against the defendant to ensure contract performance or seek compensation for contract failure.

Related Case

In Chhaganlal Keshavalal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai case (1981), the Supreme Court established a list of criteria for when the concept can be applied;
- There must be a clear and unambiguous promise.
- The plaintiff must have acted relying reasonably on that promise.
- The plaintiff must have experienced a loss.

How it related to Agnipath Scheme

The lawyer's argument using the concept effectively indicates that the government's moves, such as putting up a shortlist, are a "promise" made by it.
The other side here — the candidates acted on that commitment — they refused alternative employment in the CRPF, BSF, and so on — and must now be compensated for their loss.

Court verdict

The court rejected the lawyers' argument. They pointed out that "promissory estoppel is always subject to the overarching public interest."
The court said that "this is not a contract matter where promissory estoppel in public law was applied, it is a public employment" and that "the question of applying this principle will not arise in this case."