Gallantry Award – Centre Seeks Time as Supreme Court Reviews Medal Dispute
Gallantry Award –The Central government has informed the Supreme Court that it expects to present a positive resolution by August 7 in the long-running dispute over conferring the President’s Gallantry Award on former police officer Vivek Singh Chouhan, whose role in a 2003 anti-dacoit operation has remained the subject of prolonged legal proceedings.
Supreme Court Grants Limited Time to Centre
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to list the matter again on August 7 after the Centre assured the bench that efforts were underway to resolve the issue. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested additional time, informing the court that discussions were in progress and that a constructive outcome could be reached before the next hearing. Accepting the request, the bench scheduled the matter for August 7 while recording the government’s assurance that a positive solution would be presented.
Court Reminds Government of Earlier Direction
During the hearing, the bench noted that it had previously made it clear that no further extensions would ordinarily be granted. Earlier, on July 20, the Supreme Court had expressed dissatisfaction over the Centre’s failure to implement the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s direction to confer the President’s Gallantry Award on Chouhan.
The court had then asked the government to comply with the order by July 29. However, after the Solicitor General sought additional time, the bench agreed to hear the matter again on August 7.
Counsel representing Chouhan pointed out that gallantry awards are traditionally announced around August 14 and 15 each year and urged the court not to delay the proceedings beyond the scheduled date.
Review Petition Continues Alongside Compliance Issue
The Union government has already filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s March 25 judgment, which had upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s direction in favour of Chouhan.
During an earlier hearing, the bench questioned why the Centre had not implemented the existing court order while simultaneously pursuing a review. Chouhan’s legal counsel also informed the court that the former police officer had been waiting for justice for more than two decades.
Contempt Proceedings Against Home Secretary
The matter reached the Supreme Court after Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan challenged an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had held him prima facie guilty of contempt for not complying with its direction regarding the award.
The contempt proceedings stemmed from the High Court’s December 9, 2024, order directing the Centre to confer the President’s Gallantry Award on Chouhan within one month. According to the High Court, the order had not been implemented within the prescribed period.
Background of the 2003 Police Operation
The case traces its origins to an anti-dacoit operation carried out in 2003 in Gwalior district’s Ghatigaon area, where Vivek Singh Chouhan was serving as the station house officer.
Acting on intelligence inputs about the presence of armed dacoits in a village, Chouhan led the police operation. Two dacoits were killed during the encounter, while Chouhan himself sustained injuries.
A subsequent magisterial inquiry cleared him of any wrongdoing. Following the inquiry, recommendations were made for his out-of-turn promotion as well as for the President’s Police Medal for Gallantry.
Years of Litigation Over Award Recommendation
The legal battle continued for several years before the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the state government in 2018 to forward Chouhan’s name to the Centre. The state government sent the recommendation in 2019, but the Ministry of Home Affairs later rejected it, leading to fresh litigation.
During contempt proceedings, the Centre submitted that the President had approved the Gallantry Medal for Chouhan. However, the High Court observed that the Gallantry Medal and the President’s Gallantry Medal are separate honours and held that granting the former did not satisfy its earlier direction. The court noted that the President’s Gallantry Medal carries a higher distinction than the Gallantry Medal awarded to multiple personnel.