Gujarat High Court Warns Centre of Contempt Over CRPF HIV-Positive Officer Promotion Denial

The Gujarat High Court has warned the Union government and senior Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officers that they could face contempt proceedings if service rules that discriminate against HIV-positive personnel are not amended within the court’s deadline. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray rejected the Centre’s latest affidavit on Monday and said the force had still not brought its medical and recruitment framework in line with the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017.

In sharp oral remarks, the bench said the issue was not about combat capability but about discrimination inside an institution. “It is not about combat forces… it is about people who are there in your institution… This stigma has to go… The Act does not permit you to discriminate… if one catches HIV virus during service,” the judges observed.

The warning is part of a long-running challenge brought by a now-retired woman CRPF officer in the ministerial cadre, who says she was repeatedly denied promotion simply because she is HIV-positive. Her case has become a test of how far the 2017 law protects serving personnel from blanket exclusion based on medical status.

How the dispute reached court

The petitioner joined the CRPF as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) on June 5, 1991. She was diagnosed HIV-positive around 2013. Over the years, her medical records reflected changing SHAPE categories, the force’s fitness grading system, even though her CD4 counts remained well above the levels generally associated with severe illness.

SHAPE-1 indicates that a serving member is fully fit across five parameters: Psychological (S), Hearing (H), Appendages (A), Physical Capacity (P) and Eyesight (E). Under Clause 4.13 of Standing Order No. 04/2008, issued on November 18, 2008, and Rule 5 of the CRPF Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2011, SHAPE-1 was treated as a requirement for promotion across ranks, including for purely desk-based ministerial posts.

On the basis of a 2015 medical report that placed her in SHAPE-III, she was denied promotion to Inspector (Ministerial) by Departmental Promotion Committees for 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. She was eventually promoted to Inspector in 2019, but without the retrospective seniority and financial benefits granted to her juniors. She was again left out of consideration for promotion to Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) in 2024 after a temporary SHAPE-II classification, despite a CD4 count of 562.

She moved the High Court in 2025 through advocate Swapneshwar Goutam, arguing that the CRPF rules violated the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017, as well as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

The court’s August 2025 ruling

On August 4, 2025, the same bench ruled that Clause 4.13 of the 2008 Standing Order and Rule 5 of the 2011 Recruitment Rules were ultra vires the Constitution and the 2017 Act insofar as they applied to HIV-positive personnel. The court also directed amendments to Clauses 4.15 to 4.17 so that no benefit, opportunity or advantage could be withheld from HIV-positive employees, whether directly or indirectly.

The judges described the Centre’s failure to update the rules even after the 2017 law came into force as a “sorry state of affairs” and said the authorities had “perpetuated discrimination.” They ordered that the petitioner be given promotion to Inspector (Ministerial) from the date her juniors were promoted, along with consequential financial benefits. They also directed that a special Departmental Promotion Committee consider her for Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) after placing her in the gradation list with her batch. The exercise was to be completed within two months.

The bench noted that ministerial posts do not involve the physical demands of combat or field deployment. It also pointed out that even under the Standing Order’s own tables, personnel in certain lower SHAPE categories remain fit for duties that do not require severe physical stress, particularly where antiretroviral therapy is available.

Delay in compliance and the contempt warning

Despite the ruling, compliance moved slowly. The CRPF later fixed an effective promotion date of August 2019 instead of the earlier date when her juniors had been promoted. The court said there was “no confusion” in its original order and issued a show-cause notice for willful non-compliance. When the petitioner returned to court in December 2025 seeking clarification, the subsequent affidavits were found inadequate.

In July 2026, the Centre’s counsel told the court that an internal proposal had been sent to the medical authorities of the Central Armed Police Forces and then onward to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The bench recorded that the amendment was still pending and that no proper compliance affidavit had been filed. It then directed that a responsible officer from the Home Secretary’s office submit an affidavit by August 31, 2026, warning that an adverse order could follow if the deadline was missed. On Monday, that affidavit was rejected.

Why the 2017 law is central to the case

Section 3 of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 bars discrimination against a “protected person” in employment or occupation. The law recognises HIV status as a protected characteristic and requires reasonable accommodation rather than blanket exclusion. In the court’s view, treating HIV-positive personnel as if they were permanently unfit for career progression — even when they are clinically stable and performing non-combat work — is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The bench also noted that the issue was not confined to this case. Similar medical-category restrictions have been struck down or read down in other jurisdictions, and earlier High Court rulings on the same question had not been acted upon while the 2008 Standing Order continued to be enforced.

Wider implications for the CRPF and other forces

The ruling, along with Monday’s contempt warning, has implications beyond the petitioner’s individual promotion dispute. It potentially affects HIV-positive personnel across the CRPF and, by extension, other Central Armed Police Forces that rely on similar SHAPE-based filters for promotions. The clearest impact is on ministerial and other sedentary cadres, where there is little operational basis for denying advancement on the ground of a treatable chronic condition when the employee remains fit for the actual duties of the post.

The court has made its position clear: stigma cannot replace individual medical assessment. If the Centre and the CRPF do not now amend the Standing Order and recruitment rules, senior officers — including those in the Ministry of Home Affairs — could face formal contempt proceedings.

The matter remains pending for compliance, with the bench indicating that further delay will not be accepted.