New Delhi: Days before the Ministry of Defence (MoD) approved Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit’s promotion to Brigadier, it had rejected his statutory complaint against his non-empanelment for a higher rank, prompting him to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).
In an order on 30 March, the tribunal observed that the rejection reflected “total non-application of mind”.
Thereafter, Colonel Purohit, who was last year acquitted in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, was promoted to the rank of Brigadier on Friday. The promotion will allow him to remain in service for at least two additional years.
Purohit first approached the AFT in early March, after the ministry failed to act on his statutory complaint regarding his promotion.
The AFT had issued a notice to the MoD on 16 March and stayed Purohit’s retirement due on 30 March until a decision on his complaint was made.
In his statutory complaint to the MoD, Purohit sought restoration of his seniority and parity with his colleagues. He argued that his wrongful implication in the Malegaon case cost him two crucial promotions—first as a Colonel, and then as a Brigadier, adversely affecting his career progression.
Though Purohit received a timescale promotion to the rank of Colonel last October, in his statutory complaint, he demanded that it be based on selection and merit so he can perform the official duties of a colonel-rank officer.
A time-scale promotion has limited financial benefits to an officer, but does not entitle him/her to function as a higher-rank official. A selection-based promotion would have allowed him to become a Brigadier as well.
On 25 March, the MoD rejected his statutory complaint, stating the administrative decisions in his case aligned with the rules and showed no evidence of bias or subjectivity.
Purohit then moved an application in his petition pending before the AFT, questioning the “arbitrary rejection” order and seeking its judicial review.
After hearing his counsel, SS Pandey, the AFT bench led by Justice Rajendra Menon, on 30 March, issued notice to the MoD on the application. Pandey told the tribunal the statutory complaint was rejected without considering the issues raised by Purohit.
Noting the assertion that the MoD’s decision was without adequate reasoning, the bench issued a notice to the ministry and extended its stay order on Purohit’s retirement.
The tribunal prima facie agreed with Purohit’s contention that the MoD’s 25 March order was a “non-speaking” and one that showed a non-application of mind.
Th AFT observed: “We would, thus, like to examine all the issues involved in the matter in detail.” It has fixed 4 May for hearing the matter further.
The petition
According to Purohit’s main petition before the tribunal, he returned to service after his release on bail in 2017 but remained under suspension until it was revoked in July 2020.
Since a Discipline and Vigilance (DV) ban was imposed on Purohit, he was not considered for promotion to Colonel in February 2021. The decision was withheld and communicated to Purohit only after his acquittal in 2025, months before his retirement date. He was told he was not found fit for promotion to Colonel.
Purohit’s petition claimed the Army kept his result in a sealed cover, flagging it as against the rules because the non-disclosure denied the officer the opportunity to question the decision through any legal recourse. Resultantly, he lost out on two more chances for promotion consideration, it was argued.
In the petition, Purohit also claimed that in the normal course, he would have become a Brigadier and, therefore, eligible for promotion to the rank of Major General. But the false allegations against him, “followed by the unlawful process”, impacted his career growth.
Purohit added that he filed the statutory complaint only after his letter to the Chief of Army Staff, requesting a few minutes’ personal interaction to consider his representation against the denial of promotion, went unanswered.
Purohit sent the letter to the army chief on 10 October 2025, and filed his statutory complaint on 10 February 2026, stating that he should be considered at par with his batchmates for further promotion to Brigadier.
While issuing the notice to the MoD, the tribunal, in its 16 March 2026 order, observed, “….we find that a case is made out where the applicant (Purohit) may be right in contending that he is entitled to be considered for grant of promotion and all other benefits at par with his junior which was denied to him on account of the illegal, fabricated manner in which he was implicated in the case which is found to be established by the criminal court while acquitting him.”
Through his petition, Purohit contended before the tribunal that his criminal trial, coupled with the DV ban, deprived him of his fundamental right of fair consideration for promotion, leading to his early retirement from service. It did not just rob him of his right to live with dignity, but also violated his right to be treated equally, he claimed.
Additionally, Purohit, in his petition, said that if an officer faced civil prosecution, a decision on their promotion was kept in a sealed cover only when it was a positive one. This was done so that the officer did not derive any benefit from the promotion till the case’s pendency. However, if an officer was unfit, the result was communicated to them immediately, he submitted, suggesting he was kept in the dark purposely.
In the petition, Purohit also relied upon several internal communications to assert his innocence and non-involvement in the Malegaon case.
He included an April 2018 letter issued by the DG of Military Intelligence (DGMI) in his petition, stating that he operated a “source” network through which he obtained intelligence inputs and that his superiors were duly informed of his actions.
Another letter by the DGMI, issued in February 2019, stated that Purohit operated as expected and trained like any other military intelligence officer or field operator with any other intelligence agency, he said in his plea.
Purohit’s petition referred to three more letters by the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Army), which, the plea said, confirmed that all the acts alleged against Purohit were actually in line with his duty as tasked by the organisation. These letters were written in August 2018, February 2019, and January 2023.
Even after his release—on bail and under the DV ban—he earned seven ACRs between June 2018 and May 2025. His petition highlighted the ACRs as proof of his passion for the profession, as a soldier, and dedication and commitment to serving.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)