Accused In Summary Court-Martial Proceedings Can Take Legal Advisors

Must Read

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Follow us

Case Jaswant Singh v Union of India

Facts

The plaintiff was enrolled as a Sepoy on January 1, 2003 in the Indian army. A summary court-martial was organised on him on two charges. First one was for assaulting a superior officer while second was for using abusive language against a Subedar who pointed out that the plaintiff is not well dressed for the parade. The summary court martial acquitted him of second charge but found him guilty of the second charge. Summary court martial indicted punishment of dismissal from services and six month rigorous imprisonment in civil jail. Aggrieved by the judgement the petitioner moved to armed forces tribunal where the original application got dismissed.

Arguments

The appellant submits that by letter on date 07.07.2009 he requested a commanding officer to permit him a legal advisor. On 08.07.2009 the request was turned down under the regulation of 479 of the army regulations, where a civil advocate or a legal advisor is permissible if in the case the plaintiff is sceptical of a death sentence as punishment. On the contrary rule 129 of Army Regulations deals with the representation of the accused by any civil advocate or a legal advisor if he permits to do so. Also, the defendant said that there was no any prejudiced caused to the plaintiff. For him, they take the reference in the judgement Major G.S Sodhi vs Union of India https://indiankanoon.org/doc/284121.

Judgement

The above reference case made paved the way for the judgement in this case. Facts on which in the reference case it was held that there was no any prejudiced caused to the defence of the appellant became the foundation of the court decision. In the present case the appellant was give seven years of rigorous imprisonment. He was pitied against his commanding officer. Under the rule 129 of army regulations there was no any cemented reason to deny him legal representation which he was intended to bear on his own expenses. So it’s a clear violation of natural justice. The prejudice seems to be evident. By the judgement of seven months rigorous imprisonment and taking back his services he was being curtailed of right to liberty and livelihood. So the final judgement basically stands on natural justice. So, the outcome came here that natural justice is that which resides in every human being and it must be exercised against everyone. This should not be done on the basis of race, cast, sex and type of job one do. And also the legal maxim audi alteram partem must be exercised which means no side should be left unheard. Everyone got equal opportunity to make his point.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -