In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment on a Summary Court Martial case involving the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Union of India. The case explored the validity of convening SCMs and highlighted the importance of immediate action in exceptional circumstances. The Court’s decision sheds light on the complexities of military law and its implications on justice and fairness within the armed forces.
Facts
- The appellant was enrolled in the 43 Armed Brigade on 29 October 1996.
- He was posted as Acting Lance Dafadar at the time of the incident.
- On 11 August 2007, while on duty for cleaning the service area, the appellant entered a colleague’s residence.
- He allegedly placed his hands on the shoulder of the colleague’s spouse while she was washing her son.
- The incident led to the appeal and subsequent judgment from the Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh Regional Bench.
- The appellant was held guilty and dismissed from service.
- The Armed Forces Tribunal considered the charge as duly established.
- The Tribunal found the punishment of dismissal to be disproportionate and modified it to an order of discharge.
- A Summary Court Martial took place on 22 May 2008 where evidence was recorded.
Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals
Arguments
- The appellant argued that holding an SCM in May 2008 for an incident in August 2007 had no justification.
- During the spouse of the victim’s examination in the SCM, it was revealed that finding witnesses to conclude the inquiry at that point may be difficult.
- The learned Additional Solicitor General stated that due to the time lapse, holding the inquiry would not serve any useful purpose.
- The appellant contended that the entire incident was fabricated as retaliation for reporting misconduct by the spouse of the victim.
- Referring to the provisions of Section 120 of the Army Act 1950 and previous court decisions, the convening of an SCM was argued to be an exception for cases requiring immediate action.
- It was highlighted that the appellant had reported the spouse of the victim for unauthorized actions in June or July 2007, resulting in a punishment.
- Mr. Sanjay Jain, the learned Additional Solicitor General, responded to the charge of misconduct by stating that both the victim and her spouse had deposed during the inquiry by the SCM.
- Mr. Jain argued that there is no need for the Court to review the findings of fact since they had been affirmed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
- It was pointed out that the judgment in Vishav Priya Singh has been clarified in a review to be applicable from July 5, 2016, whereas the incident in question occurred in August 2007.
Also Read: Railway Compensation Case: Supreme Court Judgment
Analysis
- The convening of the Summary Court Martial (SCM) was found to be contrary to law.
- The appellant had previously lodged a complaint against the victim’s spouse for pilferage of petrol, indicating a potential bias.
- Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950 was discussed, particularly focusing on Sub-section (2) which requires no grave reason for immediate action.
- The SCM in this case took place nearly a year after the incident, questioning the urgency of the action taken.
- The judgement mentions that the requirement for recording reasons for convening an SCM was clarified to apply from 5th July 2016.
- The court refrained from reevaluating the factual findings given the Armed Forces Tribunal’s previous assessment.
- A significant period has elapsed since the incident, raising concerns about the delayed SCM and potential prejudice.
- The power to order an SCM is considered a drastic power and should only be used when immediate action is necessary
- This power was clarified in a review petition filed by the Union of India
- In Vishav Priya Singh case, it was further emphasized that the power to order an SCM should be exercised only in imperative situations
- Appellant had nearly twelve years’ service when he was dismissed from service.
- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that this action would meet the ends of justice.
Also Read: Scheduled Castes Reservations: Sub-Classification Dispute
Decision
- Arrears of pension to be paid to the appellant within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
- No costs to be borne by the appellant.
- The appellant will be discharged from service upon completion of minimum pensionable service, making him eligible for pensionary benefits as per the law.
- The appellant’s discharge will be effective upon completing fifteen years of service to be eligible for pension.
- The impugned order of the Armed Forces Tribunal is modified accordingly.
- Any pending applications will be disposed of.
Case Title: RANDHIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000210-000210 / 2017
