Blog

Absence of necessary ingredients required to prove coercion cannot used to file allegations against the accused and hence no case can be established. Moreover, the factual allegations made in a case cannot be conveniently decided in writ jurisdiction. The aforesaid has been established by the Delhi High Court in the case of CT/GD Vipin Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. [ W.P.(C) 6226/2021] which was decided by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal on 8^th July 2021.

The petitioner, a constable in the respondent No.3 Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) since 25th July, 2007, on 9th November, 2020 was deputed to the respondent No.2 National Investigation Agency (NIA) Headquarter at New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner, that while on deputation in respondent No.2 NIA, he was made to serve as “Batman”, at residence of senior officers and on protesting thereagainst, was coerced into making a request for premature repatriation to respondent No.3 ITBP and was so repatriated with effect from 31st December, 2020. This petition had been filed, impugning the order of repatriation and seeking a mandamus to the respondents, to restore the petitioner on deputation to NIA Headquarter at New Delhi and to utilise his services for his trade. The petitioner then made a representation before the NIA complaining about coercion and to take him back at the service, however he failed to make such a representation before the ITBP.

The court considered the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “We have enquired form the counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner, while still on deputation, made any complaint in writing, of the services of the petitioner being availed of at the residence of the senior officers of NIA and as a Batman. No answer is forthcoming from the counsel for the petitioner. Similarly, the plea of the petitioner having been coerced to seek his repatriation from NIA to ITBP, is a bald one, without the necessary ingredients as required to be pleaded vide Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972, to constitute a plea of coercion. Though the petitioner in the petition has not shied from naming the officers of respondent No.2 NIA at whose residences the petitioner was made to render services as a Batman, but has failed to give any particulars as to which officer coerced the petitioner and / or how or when, to apply/request for his premature repatriation to respondent No.3 ITBP. 10. In the absence of all the said particulars, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted the relief as sought in this petition.”

click here for judgment