Supreme Court on Recording of Facts in Military Reports: Union of India vs. Brig. Devinder Singh (23 August 2019)

Supreme Court on Recording of Facts in Military Reports: Union of India vs. Brig. Devinder Singh (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether courts can direct changes in military reports for historical accuracy.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Brig. Devinder Singh

Judgment Date: 23 August 2019

Date of the Judgment: 23 August 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a court direct the armed forces to alter their internal reports to reflect an officer’s version of historical events? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a Brigadier’s request to correct military reports related to the Kargil War. The core issue revolved around whether the Armed Forces Tribunal could order changes to After-Action Reports and other similar documents. The Supreme Court, in this case, has clarified the scope of judicial review over military records, especially those related to strategic operations.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The respondent, Brigadier Devinder Singh, was promoted to his rank in May 1998. He commanded the 70 Infantry Brigade in the Kashmir Valley, engaged in counter-insurgency operations as part of Operation Rakshak in 1999. Later, his brigade was associated with the Ladakh Sector. Brigadier Singh claimed to have predicted the Kargil intrusion, but his warnings were allegedly dismissed by his superiors. He sought to have his performance in Operation Vijay correctly recorded in various military reports, including the Battle Performance Report, After-Action Report, and reports by the Army Headquarters Military Operations Directorate, as well as the High-Power Committee of the Government of India regarding the Kargil War.

Timeline:

Date	Event
May 1998	Brigadier Devinder Singh promoted to Brigadier.
1999	Brigadier Devinder Singh commanded 70 Infantry Brigade in Kashmir Valley during Operation Rakshak.
1999	Brigadier Devinder Singh’s Brigade was associated with Ladakh Sector.
1999	Operation Vijay takes place.
May 17, 2010	Armed Forces Tribunal directs correction of facts in reports and expunging of ACR by Lt. Gen. Kishan Pal.
August 23, 2019	Supreme Court sets aside the direction of the Tribunal to correct the After-Action Report.

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal had directed that the facts should be correctly entered in the reports and that the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) written by Lt. Gen. Kishan Pal be expunged. The Union of India appealed against the part of the order which directed the correction of facts in the reports. The appellants stated that the order to expunge the ACR had been implemented and was not under challenge.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the powers of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the extent of judicial review over internal military reports. There are no specific sections of any statute mentioned in the source document.

Arguments

The respondent sought the correction of certain military reports, including the After-Action Report, to accurately reflect his performance during Operation Vijay. Specifically, he contested the portrayal of the Eastern Flank leadership, arguing that Brigadier Ashok Dugal was called to assist him, not to supersede him. The respondent’s main contention was that the historical record should accurately reflect his contributions and that the reports should acknowledge his role in forecasting the Kargil intrusion.

The appellants, on the other hand, argued that the After-Action Report and similar documents are internal records meant for strategic studies and do not have any adverse consequences for officers. They contended that these reports are prepared by experts within the armed forces and are not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts. The appellants also pointed out that the respondent had already been awarded the Vishisht Seva Medal for his role in Operation Vijay.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions
Respondent’s Submission	The Battle Performance Report, After-Action Report, Report of Army Headquarters Military Operations Directorate and Reports submitted by the High-Power Committee of the Government of India regarding Kargil War should be correctly recorded recognising his performance in Operation Vijay. Para 192 in the After-Action Report should be corrected to reflect that Brig. Ashok Dugal was called to coordinate and assist the Eastern Flank, not to head it. The respondent does not want any personal relief from the Court but only wants correct historical facts to be drawn and declared by this Court.
Appellants’ Submission	The After-Action Report is a compilation of reports submitted by officers at the time of engagement. Such reports are maintained for future strategic studies and have no adverse consequences for any officer. The reports are not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts. The respondent has been conferred Vishisht Seva Medal.

Main Submission

Sub-Submissions

Respondent’s Submission

The Battle Performance Report, After-Action Report, Report of Army Headquarters Military Operations Directorate and Reports submitted by the High-Power Committee of the Government of India regarding Kargil War should be correctly recorded recognising his performance in Operation Vijay.
Para 192 in the After-Action Report should be corrected to reflect that Brig. Ashok Dugal was called to coordinate and assist the Eastern Flank, not to head it.
The respondent does not want any personal relief from the Court but only wants correct historical facts to be drawn and declared by this Court.

Appellants’ Submission

The After-Action Report is a compilation of reports submitted by officers at the time of engagement.
Such reports are maintained for future strategic studies and have no adverse consequences for any officer.
The reports are not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts.
The respondent has been conferred Vishisht Seva Medal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the respondent can seek recording of After-Action Report in the manner sought by him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision
Whether the respondent can seek recording of After-Action Report in the manner sought by him.	The Supreme Court held that the respondent cannot seek the recording of the After-Action Report in the manner he sought. The Court stated that these reports are for strategic purposes and are not subject to judicial review.

Authorities

No authorities (cases, books, or legal provisions) were explicitly mentioned in the source document.

Authority	How it was Considered
[None mentioned in source]	[None mentioned in source]

Judgment

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Respondent’s submission that the facts should be correctly entered in the reports, including the After-Action Report, to reflect his performance in Operation Vijay.	The Court held that the Tribunal or the Court is not the Authority to appreciate the historical facts. It is for the experts and Officers in the Armed Forces to record such facts in terms of the procedure established by them. The Court stated that it neither has the expertise nor the jurisdiction to sit over the reports furnished by the Officers in respect of credit to the Officers involved in Operation Vijay.
Appellants’ submission that the After-Action Report and similar documents are internal records meant for strategic studies and do not have any adverse consequences for officers.	The Court accepted this submission, stating that the reports do not have any civil consequences and are not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts.

Submission

Court’s Treatment

Respondent’s submission that the facts should be correctly entered in the reports, including the After-Action Report, to reflect his performance in Operation Vijay.

The Court held that the Tribunal or the Court is not the Authority to appreciate the historical facts. It is for the experts and Officers in the Armed Forces to record such facts in terms of the procedure established by them. The Court stated that it neither has the expertise nor the jurisdiction to sit over the reports furnished by the Officers in respect of credit to the Officers involved in Operation Vijay.

Appellants’ submission that the After-Action Report and similar documents are internal records meant for strategic studies and do not have any adverse consequences for officers.

The Court accepted this submission, stating that the reports do not have any civil consequences and are not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts.

The Supreme Court stated, “The Tribunal or the Court is not the Authority to appreciate the historical facts as it is for the experts and Officers in the Armed Forces to record such facts in terms of the procedure established by them.” The Court further added, “This Court neither has the expertise nor has the jurisdiction to sit over the reports furnished by the Officers in respect of credit to the Officers involved in the Operation Vijay.” The Court also noted, “The reports do not have any civil consequences, therefore, is not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

Nature of Military Reports: The Court emphasized that After-Action Reports and similar documents are internal records meant for strategic studies and future planning. These reports are not intended to have civil consequences or to be used for individual officer evaluations.
Lack of Judicial Expertise: The Court acknowledged that it does not possess the expertise to evaluate the accuracy of historical facts recorded in military reports. This task is better suited for military experts and officers who have the necessary knowledge and experience.
Limited Scope of Judicial Review: The Court held that military reports of this nature are not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts. The Court’s role is limited to matters with civil consequences and not to the internal functioning of the armed forces.

Sentiment	Percentage
Nature of Military Reports	40%
Lack of Judicial Expertise	35%
Limited Scope of Judicial Review	25%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category	Percentage
Fact	30%
Law	70%

Issue: Can the Court direct changes in military reports?

↓

Are the reports for strategic purposes?

↓

Do the reports have civil consequences?

↓

Does the Court have expertise to review military reports?

↓

Conclusion: No, the Court cannot direct changes in military reports.

Key Takeaways

Military reports, such as After-Action Reports, are primarily for strategic purposes and internal use within the armed forces.
Courts do not have the expertise or jurisdiction to review and direct changes in such reports.
Judicial review is limited to matters with civil consequences and does not extend to internal military matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the direction of the Tribunal to correct the After-Action Report or other such reports.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in the source document.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies that the judiciary should not interfere with the internal functioning of the armed forces, especially in matters concerning strategic reports. The ratio decidendi is that the courts do not have the expertise to review the historical facts in military reports and that such reports are not subject to judicial review.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Brig. Devinder Singh reinforces the principle that the judiciary should not interfere in the internal affairs of the armed forces, particularly in matters concerning strategic reports. The Court held that it lacks the expertise to review the factual accuracy of military reports and that such reports are not subject to judicial review. The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining the autonomy of the armed forces in their internal processes.

FAQ

Q: Can a court order changes to military reports?
A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that courts do not have the expertise or jurisdiction to order changes to internal military reports like After-Action Reports, which are primarily for strategic purposes.

Q: What is the main purpose of military reports like After-Action Reports?
A: These reports are primarily for internal strategic studies, future planning, and review within the armed forces. They do not have civil consequences or any bearing on individual officer evaluations.

Q: What was the key issue in the case of Union of India vs. Brig. Devinder Singh?
A: The key issue was whether the Armed Forces Tribunal could direct changes in military reports to reflect an officer’s version of historical events. The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot.

Q: What is the significance of the Vishisht Seva Medal in this case?
A: The respondent had already been awarded the Vishisht Seva Medal for his role in Operation Vijay, which the court noted while deciding that the reports are not for individual officer evaluation.

Source: Union of India vs. Brig. Devinder Singh