New Delhi: The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Monday put on hold Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Purohit’s retirement from service due on 31 March 2026.
Purohit was acquitted in July last year in the 2008 Malegaon blast case and had moved the tribunal, claiming the 17-year trial deprived him of his fundamental right of fair consideration for promotion and affected his normal career progression.
Though Purohit had joined back service following his release on bail in 2017, he remained under suspension until it was revoked in July 2020. However, a Discipline and Vigilance (DV) Ban continued to operate against him. Therefore, despite being considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel in February 2021, the decision was withheld from him.
Purohit was informed about his consideration after he was acquitted, months before his retirement date, and was told he was not found fit for promotion to the rank of Colonel.
Challenging the procedure the Army followed in his case, Purohit, through his counsel S.S. Pandey, argued that the force could not have kept his result in sealed cover if he was unfit for promotion. By doing so, it denied him two more chances of consideration for promotion as well as his right to question the decision through a legal recourse, Purohit’s plea argued.
Purohit said in the normal course he would have become a Brigadier by now and, hence, eligible for promotion to the rank of a Major General. But the false allegations against him, followed by the unlawful process, impacted his career growth.
He said he moved the tribunal only after his letter to the Chief of Army Staff requesting for a personal interaction of a few minutes to consider his representation against denial of promotion to him received no response. This letter was sent on 10 October 2025 and later Purohit also filed a statutory complaint on 10 February 2026, seeking to be considered at par with his batchmates for further promotion.
The AFT bench led by Justice Rajendra Menon and comprising administrative member Rasika Chaube also issued a notice to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and said Purohit would not be retired until his statutory complaint is decided.
Upon perusing the judgement of Special Judge, NIA Court, the AFT bench 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.”
As the tribunal fixed 22 May to hear the matter again, it sought the defence ministry’s response on Purohit’s demand to grant him all consequential benefits and promotion in view of the acquittal.
Purohit has relied upon several internal communications to assert his innocence and non-involvement in the Malegaon case. According to his plea, the trial coupled with the DV ban resulted in a situation where he was deprived of his fundamental right of fair consideration for promotion, leading to an early retirement from service,
This grossly infringed upon his legal as well as fundamental right. It did not just rob him of his right to live with dignity, but violated his right to be treated equally. According to Purohit’s lawyer, in cases where an officer faces civil prosecution, a decision on their promotion is kept in a sealed cover only when it’s a positive one. This is done so that the officer does not derive any benefit of the promotion till the pendency of the case. But if an officer is unfit then the result is communicated to them immediately, the lawyer explained.
Purohit’s petition alleges he was abducted on 29 October 2008, while he was undergoing an Arabic language course. He was handed over to Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) on 4 November 2008. During the transfer of his custody, he was shown as an officer serving with Provost Unit, headquarter, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Goa area—which, his petition states, was not his posting.
In 2017 Purohit got bail from the top court. Due to his incarceration, he could not earn two crucial confidential reports: 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.
Soon after his release, he joined back his unit and even though he was on suspension, his commanding officer assigned him official tasks and also initiated his confidential reports (CRs) starting from June 2018.
Purohit’s petition cites an April 2018 letter issued by the DG of Military Intelligence, which according to it, clearly stated that the officer was operating a “source” network through which he obtained intelligence inputs and actions of the applicant was duly informed to the superiors.
Another letter by DGMI, issued in February 2019, stated that Purohit operated as he was expected and trained to as every other military intelligence officer or any field operator of any other intelligence agency would do.
Purohit’s petition refers to three more letters by the Integrated Head Quarters of Ministry of Defence (Army), which, it said, confirmed that all the acts alleged against him were actually in line of his duty as was tasked by the organisation. These letters were written in August 2018, February 2019 and January 2023.
“That in the absence of these illegalities, in normal course of his career progression, the applicant (Purohit) would have undergone his senior command, higher command and national defense college by now. All his annual confidential reports and pen pictures confirm his professional competence, integrity, dedication and loyalty towards his duty and organisation,” submitted his petition. Even after his release, on bail and under the DV ban, he earned seven ACRs between June 2018 and May 2025 and all proved his passion for the profession, soldiering, dedication and commitment towards serving.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: ‘Bare allegations’—how Malegaon ruling debunked ATS & NIA’s theories on RDX, conspiracy meetings