Spurt in number of army men seeking justice from courts causes concern all round

More and more courts are suddenly being asked to decide on issues which till a few years back were considered beyond review - court martial verdicts and the promotion policy in the armed forces. On a rough estimate, there are 170 such cases involving army personnel pending at present in the various courts. Ten years back the average was not even one new case a year.The spurt in the number of army men seeking justice from a different forum has caused concern all round, with the judiciary being none too happy with the new role it is now forced to play. While delivering judgement in some cases, judges have expressed their concern over this undesirable situation and have advised the army's top brass not to create a situation where the courts are called upon to intervene in army affairs. There thus seems to be a running battle between the army establishment and those officers who have been rubbed the wrong way.In some of the cases the army officers have challenged the decisions of court martials calling them unjust and unfair. Almost all of these concern disciplinary and service matters, though the reasons vary. In one of the better known cases, the Delhi High Court admitted a habeas corpus petition of Captain A.K. Rana who was allegedly involved in the Samba Spying Case. He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment but he challenged the order saying that he was arrested initially without a valid order. In another instance, the Supreme Court ordered army authorities to take back Captain V.K. Singh who was removed from the service on medical grounds in 1971.Restive: In a third such appeal, Lieutenant Colonel R.S. Bhagat was dismissed for allegedly stealing a saree from a box of his room-mate. Justice S.B. Wad set aside the conviction and gave a judgement against the army chief who had dismissed the officer on the recommendation of the general court martial. Another case which hit the headlines involved Major lnder Bir Singh who was not considered for promotion despite an assurance to this effect by the attorney general. The Supreme Court issued a notice of contempt of court to the army chief.A study reveals that most of these cases are an offshoot of the post-1971 situation when the emergency commissioned and short service commissioned officers realised that their chances of promotion were not as good as those of regular commissioned officers. They became restive and indisciplined. Opined a major-general: "The army is no longer a tradition. It has become just another profession. Like their civilian counterparts the army officers are also rushing to the courts at the slightest provocation."But one lawyer who has handled 17 such cases attributed it to the growing awareness among army men about the laws governing them. Another Supreme Court lawyer who has handled four complaints said: "There is an inherent defect in the judicial system of the armed forces which does not provide sufficient opportunity to the accused to defend himself. Once some officer or jawan is charged with some omission he has to be punished."However, the new Army Chief, General Krishna Rao, defended the system of promotions, in an exclusive interview . Said he: "We have a very strict system of keeping a watch on the careers of all the people. I personally feel the system is fair and objective." Regarding disciplinary cases the new army chief said, "Their number is very small."The System: The Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the army is its judiciary. He is appointed by the army chief and is directly under the control of the adjutant general. Each wing of the armed forces has its own jag. It frames the charges and a prosecution officer presents the case before the court martial specially constituted to dispose of the matter. Technically, every court martial is also under the army chief. Those who have challenged the decisions of the general court martial seem to have ignored the fact that the Army Act is not only different from laws governing civilians but is also tougher because it deals with a different class of people. Under no circumstances can the rights and duties of army personnel be compared to those of civilians, emphasise army authorities.In this context, a comment by Supreme Court Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Captain V.K. Singh versus Union of India, is relevant. Said he: "Even the top brass must act according to law as lawlessness in the defence forces is a grave risk."Regarding the defects in the army judicial system, M.L. Varma. a senior advocate, who has taken up such cases and has got the naval chiefs decision reversed in one instance, said: "The accused is not given sufficient notice to engage a lawyer." In any case, every court martial lasts from one to two months. Not all lawyers are competent to handle such cases and even a brigadier can't afford to engage a specialist for so long. Old Laws: A senior army officer at Army Headquarters dismissed the feeling of dissatisfaction saying: "There is general indiscipline and lawlessness in the country. You can't run the armed forces on the same lines. We do the maximum possible for our officers and men. Why should we punish an innocent or honest officer? The army functions like a close-knit family. Here the feeling of camaraderie and kinship is more than anywhere else."Countered a major who has challenged his supersession in the Delhi High Court: "The Army Act is 70 years old and it was framed to suit the requirements of the British Raj. Even they have modified their act many a time but we continue to apply it." According to another accused involved in a case of insubordination, the authorities apply the act in letter and not in spirit. A lawyer who has secured stay orders against the judgement of court martials in three cases commented: "The young people who join the army are better exposed to their environment and to political influence in the functioning of the army. The army is no more sacrosanct. If an officer challenges a supersession done on extraneous considerations, he is fully justified in doing so."Running Battle: Army Headquarters refused to comment officially on these points but in private conversation officers were very bitter about this "irresponsible behaviour". Said a brigadier: "The requirement and expectations from the armed forces have not changed. In fact, they are called upon to fulfill more hazardous duties. Therefore the Act facilitating the disciplined governance of the army continues to be same. More exposure of growing awareness does not mean that 90 per cent competence will suffice. The developments in civil life have not changed the functions of the armed forces. On the contrary, they have multiplied them. No officer is prejudiced enough to punish or paint his junior in black. And for a few black sheep, you can't blame the whole establishment as unjust."According to highly-placed sources, the Government has decided to stop armed forces personnel from going to court for the redressal of their grievances. A Cabinet sub-committee comprising the home, law and defence ministers has been formed to suggest constitutional amendments so that their access to the civil courts in such matters is blocked. Instead some alternate provision is likely to be made in the Army Act itself. The amendments might come before Parliament in the next session.Published By: AtMigration Published On: Nov 19, 2013 14:33 IST--- ENDS ---

Download App

Get 37% off on an annual Print +Digital subscription of India Today Magazine

Spurt in number of army men seeking justice from courts causes concern all round

More and more courts are suddenly being asked to decide on issues which till a few years back were considered beyond review - court martial verdicts and the promotion policy in the armed forces.

PUBLICATIONS

TELEVISION

EVENTS

RADIO

GAMING

USEFUL LINKS

PRINTING

WELFARE

DISTRIBUTION

SYNDICATIONS

WEBSITES

EDUCATION