Summary Court Martial Powers: Supreme Court clarifies procedure in Randhir Singh vs Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 8, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 705

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a Summary Court Martial (SCM) be convened without a grave reason for immediate action? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning a dismissal from service following an SCM. The core issue was whether the convening of the SCM was justified under the Army Act, 1950, specifically Section 120, when the incident occurred several months before the SCM. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which an SCM can be convened and emphasizes the need for immediate action to justify such proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J.

Case Background

The appellant, Randhir Singh, was enrolled in the 43 Armed Brigade on October 29, 1996. At the time of the incident, he was serving as an Acting Lance Dafadar. On August 11, 2007, while on duty, it was alleged that he entered the residence of a colleague and touched the shoulder of his colleague’s spouse while she was washing her son. Following this incident, a Summary Court Martial (SCM) was convened on May 22, 2008, where evidence was recorded, and the appellant was found guilty and dismissed from service. The victim and her husband were among those who deposed during the SCM.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal, while upholding the charge against the appellant, modified the punishment of dismissal to discharge, deeming the dismissal disproportionate. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted the Armed Forces Tribunal had already reviewed the facts, but it considered a crucial legal point regarding the validity of the SCM itself.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, which governs the powers of Summary Courts-Martial. The section states:

“120. Powers of summary courts- martial.
(1)Subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), a summary court- martial may try any offence punishable under this Act.
(2)When there is no grave reason for immediate action and reference can without detriment to discipline be made to the officer empowered to convene a district court- martial or on active service a summary general court- martial for the trial of the alleged offender, an officer holding a summary court- martial shall not try without such reference any offence punishable under any of the sections 34, 37 and 69, or any offence against the officer holding the court.
(3)A summary court- martial may try any person subject to this Act and under the command of the officer holding the court, except an officer, junior commissioned officer or warrant officer.
(4)A summary court- martial may pass any sentence which may be passed under this Act, except a sentence of death or transportation, or of imprisonment for a term exceeding the limit specified in sub- section (5).
(5) The limit referred to in sub- section (4) shall be one year if the officer holding the summary court- martial is of the rank of lieutenant colonel and upwards, and three months if such officer is below that rank.”

The Court also referred to its previous judgments in Ex Havildar Ratan Singh vs Union of India & Ors [AIR 1992 SC 415] and Union of India and Others vs Vishav Priya Singh [(2016) 8 SCC 641], which interpreted Section 120. The judgment in Vishav Priya Singh clarified that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power to be used when immediate action is necessary. This was later clarified in a review petition to apply from 5 July 2016.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the entire incident was fabricated as a reprisal. He had previously reported the victim’s spouse for unauthorized removal of petrol, for which the spouse was punished. This was brought out during the SCM.
• The appellant contended that the SCM was improperly convened. According to Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ex Havildar Ratan Singh vs Union of India & Ors [AIR 1992 SC 415] and Union of India and Others vs Vishav Priya Singh [(2016) 8 SCC 641], an SCM should only be convened when immediate action is necessary. In this case, the incident occurred in August 2007, and the SCM was held in May 2008, indicating no urgency.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the victim and her spouse had both testified against the appellant during the SCM. Therefore, the findings of fact should not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
• The respondent submitted that the judgment in Union of India and Others vs Vishav Priya Singh [(2016) 8 SCC 641], which requires reasons for convening an SCM, was clarified in a review petition to apply from 5 July 2016. The incident in this case occurred in August 2007, so the clarification should not apply.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the following key point:

• Whether the convening of the Summary Court Martial (SCM) was valid under Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, given that there was no grave reason for immediate action.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Ex Havildar Ratan Singh vs Union of India & Ors [AIR 1992 SC 415]* and Union of India and Others vs Vishav Priya Singh [(2016) 8 SCC 641]* to interpret Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950. These cases established that an SCM is a drastic measure to be used only when immediate action is necessary. The Court emphasized that the SCM was convened several months after the alleged incident, which did not meet the requirement of immediate action.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the interpretation of Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, and the principle that a Summary Court Martial (SCM) should only be convened when there is a grave reason for immediate action. The delay between the incident (August 2007) and the SCM (May 2008) was a critical factor in the Court’s reasoning.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s emphasis was more on the legal interpretation of Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950 rather than the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the convening of the SCM was contrary to law because there was no grave reason for immediate action. The Court noted that while the incident occurred on August 11, 2007, the SCM took place on May 22, 2008. The Court stated, “the fundamental principle of law which has been enunciated is that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is necessary.”

The Court considered granting liberty to the respondents to pursue proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law. However, given that nearly twelve years had elapsed since the incident, and the Additional Solicitor General submitted that it would be difficult to find witnesses, the Court decided against this. The Court observed, “it may be difficult to find witnesses to conclude the inquiry and hence, no useful purpose would be served and it would not be practicable to hold the inquiry.”

The Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, ordered that the discharge of the appellant would take effect from the date on which he completed fifteen years of service, making him eligible for pension. The Court noted, “the ends of justice would be met if in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we order and direct that the discharge of the appellant shall take effect from the date on which he completes fifteen years of service so as to render him eligible for the grant of pension.”

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal was modified to reflect this decision. The appellant was to be discharged from service upon completion of the minimum pensionable service and was entitled to pensionary benefits. The arrears of pension were to be paid within three months.

Key Takeaways

• A Summary Court Martial (SCM) should only be convened when there is a grave reason for immediate action.
• Delay between the incident and the convening of the SCM can invalidate the proceedings.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice, especially in cases of long delays.
• Military personnel are entitled to pensionary benefits upon completion of the minimum pensionable service.
• The judgment clarifies that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power to be used when immediate action is necessary.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the discharge of the appellant shall take effect from the date on which he completes fifteen years of service, making him eligible for pension. The arrears of pension were to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Summary Court Martial (SCM) must be convened only when there is a grave reason for immediate action, as required by Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950. This judgment reinforces the principle established in previous cases like Ex Havildar Ratan Singh vs Union of India & Ors [AIR 1992 SC 415] and Union of India and Others vs Vishav Priya Singh [(2016) 8 SCC 641]. The judgment clarifies that any delay between the incident and the convening of the SCM without a valid justification would render the SCM invalid. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the strict adherence to the requirement of immediate action.

Conclusion

In Randhir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court held that the Summary Court Martial (SCM) against the appellant was invalid because it was not convened with the required immediacy as mandated by Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950. The Court emphasized that SCMs are a drastic measure and should only be used when there is a grave reason for immediate action. The Court modified the appellant’s discharge to take effect upon completion of the minimum pensionable service, ensuring he received his pensionary benefits. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in military justice and the need for immediate action when using the drastic power of an SCM.

Category

Parent Category: Armed Forces Law

Child Categories:

• Summary Court Martial
• Section 120, Army Act, 1950
• Military Justice

Parent Category: Army Act, 1950

Child Categories:

• Section 120, Army Act, 1950

FAQ

Q: What is a Summary Court Martial (SCM)?

A: A Summary Court Martial (SCM) is a type of military court that can be convened to try offenses under the Army Act, 1950. It is a quicker process than a General Court Martial but has limitations on the severity of punishments it can impose.

Q: When can a Summary Court Martial be convened?

A: According to Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, and as clarified by the Supreme Court, an SCM should only be convened when there is a grave reason for immediate action. This means that the situation must require urgent and swift action to maintain discipline.

Q: What happens if there is a delay in convening an SCM?

A: If there is a significant delay between the incident and the convening of the SCM, and there is no valid reason for the delay, the SCM may be deemed invalid. The Supreme Court has emphasized that immediate action is a necessary condition for a valid SCM.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in the case of Randhir Singh vs. Union of India?

A: The Supreme Court held that the SCM against Randhir Singh was invalid because there was no grave reason for immediate action. The incident occurred in August 2007, but the SCM was convened in May 2008, indicating no urgency. The Court modified his discharge to be effective upon completion of his pensionable service.

Q: What is Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

A: Article 142 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The Court used this power to ensure that Randhir Singh received his pension benefits despite the invalid SCM.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment reinforces the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements when convening an SCM. It emphasizes that immediate action is a prerequisite for a valid SCM, and any delay without justification can invalidate the proceedings. It also highlights the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring justice, especially in cases of long delays.