IAF Viral Video Soldier Dismissal: Delhi High Court Upholds Ouster of Airman Sachin Kumar Solanki Over Disparity Claims
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of former IAF Corporal Sachin Kumar Solanki for uploading a social media video criticising disparities between officers and airmen. The court ruled that bypassing grievance mechanisms tarnished the military's image and that the punishment was not disproportionate to the breach of discipline.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of former Indian Air Force (IAF) Corporal Sachin Kumar Solanki, who was removed from service after uploading a social media video criticising alleged disparities between officers and lower-ranking airmen. A division bench of Justices courted that military discipline demands strict standards and limited judicial intervention, validating a prior decision by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). Solanki, who was in full uniform in the video, had publicly alleged systemic inequality within the force.
The Viral Disparity Claims by Corporal Sachin Kumar Solanki
The legal battle stems from a video Solanki uploaded to Facebook in January 2017. At the time, he was serving as an Airman-Communication Technician after enrolling in the IAF in 2011. In the video, which accumulated thousands of views and circulated broadly across various social media networks, Solanki alleged unequal treatment between officers and jawans. His grievances focused specifically on disparities regarding ration facilities, uniform distribution, travel accommodations, financial allowances, and general social status within the military hierarchy. Gujarat: 10-Foot-Long Unclaimed Drone Wing Found on Kutch Coastline; Material Sent to IAF for Technical Analysis.
Administrative Inquiry and Removal of Sachin Kumar Solanki
Following the public release of the video, the IAF authorities assembled a Court of Inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the post. This investigation led to a formal Show Cause Notice being issued to the airman in August 2017. On December 2, 2017, the competent authority issued an administrative order officially removing Solanki from service under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act. Defense officials reasoned that Solanki was engaged in “undesirable activities, which are illegal and prejudicial to Service discipline, norms and ethos,” concluding that his actions were “unbecoming of a member of a combatant force like the IAF”.
The Tribunal and High Court Appeals
Solanki initially challenged the administrative removal order before the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed his application on October 17, 2025, finding no illegality or breach of natural justice in how the IAF handled his case. In his subsequent appeal to the Delhi High Court, Solanki limited his arguments to a purported violation of the principles of natural justice. He further argued that his family circumstances had caused a weak mental state, dissatisfaction, and frustration that ultimately led to the recording. Solanki's legal counsel contended that the ultimate punishment of absolute removal from service was "shockingly disproportionate" to the infraction. UP Youths Scale Water Tank for Social Media Reel, Ladder Breaks; IAF Helicopter Rescues Them (Watch Video).
Delhi High Court Rules on Service Discipline
The High Court bench rejected these arguments, clarifying that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is explicitly constrained when reviewing military disciplinary matters. The court observed that Solanki explicitly violated the mandated directives of Air Force Order 17/2015, which restricts and regulates personnel interaction on social media platforms. Addressing the defense regarding Solanki's underlying stress, the bench remarked, “it is not conducive of a member of the forces to take an excuse of mental condition when he is bound by the Air Force Act and is expected to not act in a manner unbecoming of a man in uniform”.
The judges emphasised that bypassing internal grievance redressal mechanisms to broadcast service complaints publicly directly tarnishes the image of the institution and impacts force morale. The court concluded that the administrative decision to remove the petitioner "cannot be said to be so outrageously disproportionate as to shock the conscience of this Court," effectively closing the writ petition.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 04, 2026 11:16 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
