The Delhi High Court has upheld the removal of a former Indian Air Force corporal who uploaded a video on social media alleging unequal treatment between officers and airmen within the force.
A division bench of the court ruled that matters concerning discipline in the armed forces require limited judicial interference and found no illegality in the administrative action taken against the petitioner.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Corporal Sachin Kumar Solanki, was enrolled in the Indian Air Force in 2011 as a communication technician. In January 2017, he uploaded a video on Facebook while wearing uniform, where he publicly spoke about alleged disparities in ration facilities, travel arrangements, uniforms, allowances and social treatment between officers and jawans.
According to the record, the video was uploaded from a Facebook account having more than 2,000 followers and later circulated on different social media platforms. The Air Force subsequently initiated a Court of Inquiry and later issued a show cause notice.
The competent authority eventually ordered his removal from service in December 2017 under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act read with Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules. The Armed Forces Tribunal later dismissed his challenge against the removal order in October 2025.
Court’s Observations
The High Court observed that the scope of judicial review in matters involving military discipline is “markedly limited” and courts cannot function as appellate authorities over disciplinary findings of the armed forces.
“The maintenance of discipline in the Armed Forces stands on a different footing from ordinary civil employment,” the bench observed while stressing the importance of command structure and institutional discipline.
The court noted that the petitioner never denied recording the video or uploading it online. It also recorded that the video violated Air Force rules regulating social media conduct and dissemination of service-related information.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument regarding mental stress and family circumstances, the bench said the tribunal had already examined those claims. The court also noted that the petitioner had initially admitted uploading the video before later attempting to shift blame onto children from his residential society.
On the issue of lack of Court Martial proceedings, the High Court agreed with the tribunal that administrative action could independently be taken after a fact-finding inquiry and issuance of a show cause notice.
The bench further observed that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and principles of natural justice had been followed.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the punishment imposed could not be termed “shockingly disproportionate” considering the nature of the conduct and the standards expected from members of a combatant force.
Finding no infirmity in the Armed Forces Tribunal’s reasoning, the court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the petitioner’s removal from service.
Case Details
Case Title: Cpl Sachin Kumar Solanki (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 6952/2026
Judge: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Decision Date: May 19, 2026
