National

Must Hear Us Before Making Any Decisions: Centre To SC Over Agnipath Schemes

So far, three petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against ‘Agnipath’- the centre’s short-term recruitment plan for the armed forces.

New Delhi: The government has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, requesting that the court “hear its side” before ruling on the petitions challenging the ‘Agnipath’ military recruitment plan.

Three petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court so far against ‘Agnipath,’ the government’s short-term military recruitment plan. The caveat, on the other hand, makes no mention of any specific request.

On Monday, advocate Harsh Ajay Singh filed a case in the Supreme Court, requesting that the centre reconsider its ‘Agnipath’ recruitment scheme. The petition further stated that the scheme’s unveiling sparked protests in several parts of the country.

Lawyers ML Sharma and Vishal Tiwari have already filed two separate cases in the Supreme Court against the scheme.

The government has overturned the century-old selection procedure for the armed services, according to the petition filed by attorney ML Sharma, in violation of constitutional rules and without parliamentary sanction.

In a petition filed last week, advocate Vishal Tiwari sought the Supreme Court to appoint a committee to investigate the scheme and its impact on national security and the Army. It also asked the Supreme Court to order the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the widespread violence against the scheme that resulted in the destruction of public property.

After the centre revealed the ‘Agnipath’ concept on June 14, protests erupted in numerous states. People aged 17.5 to 21 will be conscripted into the military forces for a four-year period, after which they would be forced to resign without gratuity or pension benefits.

In an effort to appease the demonstrators, the government later increased the upper age limit for enlistment to 23 years in 2022.

Several opposition parties, as well as some military veterans, have criticised the plan, claiming that the four-year term will dampen the soldiers’ fighting spirit and make them risk-averse.

Dear Readers,
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.

Related posts