Supreme Court Clarifies Parity & Transparency in Confidential Military Reports

Commentary on Brig Sandeep Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 685

1. Introduction

This Supreme Court decision resolves a dispute concerning two Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) that directly affected the promotion prospects of Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary, a highly-decorated officer of the Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineers (EME). The Court examined whether alleged bias by the same Initiating Officer (IO) could taint both ACRs written for successive periods (December 2017 – June 2018 and July 2018 – June 2019). The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had partially upheld the Brigadier’s challenge, expunging adverse portions only from the second ACR. The Supreme Court was asked to extend that relief to the first ACR and to direct a fresh promotion board accordingly.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court (per Abhay S. Oka J., with Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih JJ. concurring) allowed the appeal, holding that:

• The Tribunal’s own findings about bias and manipulation by the IO in the second ACR equally applied to the first ACR because the IO and SRO were common to both periods and the modus operandi was identical.
• Accordingly, figurative ratings by the IO and Reviewing Officer (RO) in the Qualities to Assess Potential (QsAPs) and Box gradings for the first ACR (Dec 2017 – Jun 2018) must also be expunged.
• The appellant’s case for promotion to Major General must be reconsidered in light of the expunged ratings. If he has since superannuated, he is entitled to notional promotion and consequential monetary benefits.
• No costs were awarded.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The principal authority relied upon by the Union was Dev Dutt v. Union Of India (2008) 8 SCC 725. In Dev Dutt, the Court mandated that every entry in an ACR, including “good” or “average” entries that adversely affect promotion, must be communicated to the employee so that he can represent against it. Although Dev Dutt involved civil services, its ratio on transparency and natural justice has been imported into military jurisprudence over the last decade.

The present judgment builds on Dev Dutt by focusing on portions of an ACR not disclosed to the officer. While the Army Order 02/2016/MS explicitly withholds certain segments (especially RO/SRO pen-pictures and Box gradings) from disclosure, the Supreme Court underscores that the concealment of biased or lower scores cannot defeat judicial scrutiny. In effect, the Court extends Dev Dutt’s demand for fairness to hidden components within a military appraisal system historically protected by confidentiality.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Commonality of Intention & Actors: The Court observed that both ACRs were initiated by the same IO (Respondent 4) and endorsed by the same SRO. The AFT had already recorded that the IO intentionally “masked” lower grades in the unseen section of the second ACR. Given the identical circumstances, the Court found no rational basis to treat the first ACR differently.
2. Selective Downgrading & Lack of Justification: In the first ACR, outwardly high ratings were given in the part shown to the officer, while lower Box gradings appeared in the hidden part, mirroring the second ACR. The respondents could not justify this discrepancy except by citing routine administrative issues (e.g., incorrect Strength Returns). The Court treated the unexplained disparity as evidence of mala fide intent.
3. Doctrine of Parity: Once bias is established for one assessment cycle, and the decision-makers are the same, parity requires that contaminated ratings across contiguous periods be treated alike. This stems from Article 14’s guarantee against arbitrary discrimination.
4. Judicial Review Standards: While courts are generally slow to interfere with subjective performance appraisals, they will intervene when (i) the process violates statutory/administrative instructions, (ii) mala fides are proven, or (iii) reasons are illogical or unsupported by record. All three triggers coalesced here.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Enhanced Oversight on Hidden Segments of Military ACRs: The Court signals that confidentiality provisions do not shield discriminatory ratings from judicial oversight. Future litigation may increasingly question “concealed” Box gradings.
• Doctrine of Contaminated Continuum: If bias corrupts one period’s appraisal, adjoining periods authored by the same officer(s) are suspect. This will deter superiors from deploying staggered or subtle downgrading strategies.
• Promotion Boards & Retrospective Relief: Armed Forces Selection Boards must now reassess candidates where any segment of earlier ACRs is annulled. Officers who retire during litigation can still secure notional promotion and arrears, reducing the incentive for delay.
• Administrative Reforms: The Ministry of Defence may revisit Army Order 02/2016/MS to rethink the scope of non-disclosure, introduce additional safeguards (e.g., independent audit of hidden portions), and sharpen counselling protocols.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Annual Confidential Report (ACR): A yearly appraisal capturing an officer’s personal qualities, professional performance, and potential for promotion.
• Initiating Officer (IO): The immediate superior who drafts the initial ratings.
• Reviewing Officer (RO): The next level in the chain of command who reviews and may alter the IO’s assessment.
• Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO): A still higher authority providing final remarks. Parts of his evaluation are not shown to the officer under current policy.
• QsAP (Qualities to Assess Potential): Five attributes used to gauge an officer’s suitability for higher rank, graded numerically (9 = Outstanding, 7-8 = Above Average, etc.).
• Box Grading: An overall numeric score summarising the officer’s standing; influential in promotion boards.
• Expunction: Judicial order deleting or ignoring certain adverse remarks/ratings from the official record.
• Notional Promotion: A promotion granted with retrospective seniority and financial benefits, despite the officer having already retired.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that confidentiality in performance appraisals cannot be a cloak for bias. By ordering parity in expunction across two ACRs authored by the same allegedly prejudiced officer, the Court solidifies judicial standards for reviewing military promotions. The ruling will reverberate across armed forces administration, compelling greater transparency, accountability, and diligence in appraisal writing. It also fortifies the rights of officers to fair assessment, serving as a potent reminder that subtle manipulations in “hidden” sections of a confidential report are judicially cognisable and correctable.