Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre For Delaying Decision On Ex-Cop's President's Gallantry Award For Anti-Dacoity Operation

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over the Union Government's continued refusal to comply with a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction to confer the President's Gallantry Award on a former police officer who shot dead two dacoits during an anti-dacoity operation more than two decades ago.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an application filed by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan seeking time to comply with the order directing the conferment of the award to police officer Vivek Singh Chouhan.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Centre had filed a review petition against the Supreme Court's order approving the High Court's judgment. He submitted that the objection was "in principle" and not against the individual officer.

"We have filed review. It's objection in principle. If Your Lordships can consider the review, we can work out. He may eventually get it but not under a mandamus," Mehta submitted.

Justice Vikram Nath questioned why the government could not comply with the order while pursuing the review.

"Why don't you comply and then argue your review?" the Bench asked.

When the Solicitor General argued that if the review succeeded, the award could be withdrawn, the Bench responded, "If it is allowed then award will go. Why can't you comply? Why are you making it an issue?"

Mehta reiterated that it was "more a principle issue than about any individual."

Justice Nath remarked, "No, no, this is something else. Why are you taking a stand against a PSI(Police Sub Inspector?" Mehta clarified that the issue had nothing to do with the officer's rank and requested that the review petition be listed for oral hearing.

Counsel for the police officer submitted that his client had been waiting for justice for 23 years and argued that the authorities had already been held guilty of contempt, with only the question of sentence remaining. He urged the Court to direct immediate compliance.

The Bench, however, granted the Union one final opportunity to take a decision.

"We think this is too small a matter to be dragged like this. We are granting you one week to take a decision," Justice Nath observed, questioning why the government was prolonging the dispute.

Although the Solicitor General sought one month's time and later requested that the matter be listed after two weeks, counsel for the officer pointed out that the President's Gallantry Awards are conferred only on Independence Day and Republic Day. He submitted that any further delay would postpone the award by another year.

The Court ultimately directed that the matter be listed on July 29, making it clear that "no further time will be granted."

Justice Nath added, "Please convey to the government that the Court is not happy."

Defending the Centre's stand, the Solicitor General argued that honours are conferred and not claimed through judicial directions.

"It's not against the man. Honours are conferred, not sought for or directed by way of mandamus," Mehta submitted.

Justice Nath responded that the Court was "also conscious where to issue mandamus and where not to," adding that there must have been "compelling circumstances" for the High Court to have issued such a direction. He also noted that the Special Leave Petition against the High Court judgment had already been dismissed, and urged the government to comply.

Justice Sandeep Mehta made a pointed remark, stating, "You either give a statement. Ignore the mandamus and we will confer it ourselves on 15th August."

When the Solicitor General again pressed for the review petition to be heard, Justice Nath indicated that if the government stated on the next date that it would confer the award on August 15, the Court would consider deciding the review thereafter.

Background

The Union Home Secretary approached the Supreme Court against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which held Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan prima facie guilty of contempt for failing to comply with its direction to confer the President's Gallantry Medal on police officer Vivek Singh Chouhan. The High Court observed that the Union Government had "overreached" the court's order by approving a lower Gallantry Medal (GM) instead.

Justice Pranay Verma, however, granted the Union one final opportunity to comply with the court's earlier order, warning that if compliance is not ensured before the next hearing, the Home Secretary "shall automatically be deemed to be held in contempt" and further proceedings would follow.

The contempt petition arose from the Union's alleged failure to implement the High Court's December 9, 2024 order directing that Chouhan receive the gallantry award within one month. That order had subsequently been upheld by a Division Bench.

Chouhan, who was serving as SHO of Ghatigaon police station in Gwalior district in 2003, had led an operation against dacoits after receiving intelligence about their presence in a village. Two dacoits were killed in the encounter, during which Chouhan himself sustained injuries. Following a magisterial inquiry that gave him a clean chit, recommendations were made for his out-of-turn promotion and for conferring the President's Police Medal for Gallantry.

After years of litigation, the High Court in 2018 directed the State to forward his case to the Centre. Although Madhya Pradesh recommended his name in 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the claim later that year. Chouhan successfully challenged that decision in 2024, leading to the High Court's direction to confer the gallantry award.

In the contempt proceedings, the Union submitted a compliance report stating that the President had approved the award of the Gallantry Medal (GM) to Chouhan.

The High Court found this insufficient, holding that the Gallantry Medal and the President's Gallantry Medal are distinct honours. It observed that the President's Gallantry Medal is a higher distinction, whereas the Gallantry Medal is awarded to numerous personnel simultaneously.

Rejecting the Centre's contention that the earlier order merely required conferment of "a gallantry award," the Court held that such an interpretation was "totally unwarranted and mischievous."

Justice Verma observed that throughout the litigation, Chouhan's claim had consistently been for the President's Gallantry Medal, and that the High Court had adjudicated the matter on that basis. Merely because the concluding portion of the earlier order referred to "gallantry award," the Union could not treat it as authorising conferment of a different and lower honour, the Court said.

The Court concluded that the Union had "clearly over reached the order" and acted in an "absolutely mischievous and unwarranted manner," amounting to prima facie wilful disobedience of the court's directions.

Case : GOVIND MOHAN Vs VIVEK SINGH CHOUHAN | MA 2056/2026 in SLP(C) No. 10821/2026 Diary No. 40866 / 2026