The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the creation of a separate Gujjar Regiment in the Indian Army, calling the petition “absolutely divisive” and lacking constitutional backing. The Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed strong reservations about the basis of the plea and warned of imposing costs, prompting the petitioner to withdraw it.
The PIL, filed by Rohan Basoya, claimed that the Gujjar community has a longstanding martial legacy and has actively participated in major military engagements, including the 1857 revolt, all Indo-Pak wars, the Kargil conflict, and counter-insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner argued that, despite this record, Gujjars have been excluded from the Indian Army’s ethnic-based regimental system, unlike other groups such as Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gorkhas, and Dogras.
“After arguing at some length, the counsel for the petitioner states that she has instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the court, to withdraw the petition. The same is dismissed as withdrawn,” the Bench recorded in its order.
More Read
During the hearing, the court questioned the legal foundation of the plea, asking the petitioner’s counsel to identify any provision in the Constitution or law that guarantees the right to form a regiment based on community identity.
The petition argued that the continued exclusion of Gujjars from regimented representation violates constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment. It further stated that Gujjars are significantly present in strategic border areas such as Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Punjab, and thus could bolster national security through dedicated regimental participation.
However, the court found the petition lacking in legal merit and cautioned the petitioner about the consequences of promoting a divisive demand without proper research or statutory grounding. The withdrawal of the petition ended the matter, with no directions issued to the Centre.
