When Reasons Aren't Recorded To Appoint Junior Officer As Judge Advocate, Court Martial Proceedings Stand Invalidated: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep.9) observed that non-recording of the reasons in the convening order to appoint a Junior Officer as Presiding Officer of the Martial Court would invalidate the proceedings recorded before such Junior Officer.

Drawing reference from the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Charanjit Singh Gill (2000) the Court, in essence, said that it would be impermissible for the Junior Officer to act as the Presiding Officer to decide the plea against the superior officer/accused unless the reasons were not recorded in the convening order that due to the exigencies of public service, an officer of equal or superior rank to the accused is not available to act as Judge Advocate.

“The legal position is thus well settled in Charanjit Singh Gill (supra) that non-recording of reasons of appointment of an officer junior in rank as a Judge Advocate in the convening order invalidates the Court Martial proceedings. The High Court has not committed any error of law in holding so in the facts and circumstances of the case.”, the bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Prasanna B Varale said.

It was a case where the Junior Officer was appointed to act as the Presiding Officer of the Martial Court to decide the plea against the Superior Officer/accused. The letter convening the appointment of the Junior Officer as a Presiding Officer doesn't contain reasons for his appointment, however after the letter was dispatched and received by the Headquarters, the letter was altered/modified to record the reasons for the appointment of the Junior Officer as Presiding Officer.

The Armed Forces Tribunal had affirmed the validity of the Court Martial proceedings. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the AFT's decision.

Affirming the decision of the High Court and dismissing the Union's appeal, the Supreme Court said that once the convening order is dispatched and received by the Headquarters which didn't contain the reason for the appointment of the junior officer as presiding officer to adjudicate the case of its senior, then it wouldn't be permissible to alter the convening order after receiving such convening order.

“The High Court specifically observed that once a document has been put in the course of transmission by the General Officer Commanding, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala area, the same could not be changed/altered or modified except after recording that there was a mistake, which needs correction. Once dispatched by the officer signing the same, the communication of the document is complete and any alteration in the document is unauthorised.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said.

“In the above circumstances, it is quite apparent that the reason for culling out exception as held permissible by this Court in Charanjit Singh Gill (supra), was not mentioned in the document while the same was dispatched by the issuing authority and supplied to the respondent. Subsequent mentioning of the reason in the other document, after putting signatures by the issuing authority, was unauthorised and impermissible, the High Court has correctly held that the convening order suffers from incurable defect..”, the Court added.

Thus, the Court held that the Court of Martial committed an error in hearing the case as it was not eligible to hear the case of the respondent/accused who happened to be its superior, and his appointment was made contrary to the law laid down in the Charanjit Singh Gill's Case.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Union was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Adv. Mr. Harkirat Singh, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, AOR

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS LT. COL. RAHUL ARORA, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2459 OF 2017

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 677
Click here to read/download the judgment