Defence Notes
New Delhi, 28 July
2008
Armed Forces Tribunal
MILITARY JUSTICE FINALLY IN PLACE
By Col
(Dr). P. K. Vasudeva (Retd)
The Union
Cabinet has finally cleared 31 top-level posts for an independent Armed Forces
Tribunal, which is to hear the grievances of the Armed forces personnel. This is a major step taken towards the much-needed reform of
the military judicial system. For long, the jawans and officers have been deprived of speedy redressal of
grievances, thanks to overburdened high courts and the Supreme Court.
Full credit,
of course should go to Defence Minister AK Antony, for his commitment as the
demand has been hanging fire for over two decades. Soon, the Armed forces
should feel confident that their grievances against court martial verdicts,
supersession in promotions and other irregularities will be taken care of and
that too hopefully faster.
The parent
legislation, which came into affect this mid-June, had secured parliamentary
approval after a protracted process during the winter session, and the Presidential
assent on Christmas Day. The Tribunal will have a chairperson
and 29 members at its principal bench in New Delhi
and eight regional benches in Chandigarh, Lucknow, Jaipur, Kolkata, Mumbai, Guwahati, Chennai and Kochi. The Chandigarh
Bench will have jurisdiction over Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.
Once
the Tribunal starts functioning, it will not only take up fresh cases but will adjudicate over 9,800 cases of Armed forces
personnel relating to court martial and other service matters pending in
various high courts and the Supreme Court. Significantly, the paramilitary
forces will also be brought under the control of the Tribunal, about which,
however, some Service as well as police and paramilitary officers aren’t too happy.
They feel that the Tribunal members would, in all probability, be biased and that
this would impact the adjudication of justice to paramilitary personnel.
It has not
taken long for the Cabinet to follow-up on Defence minister Antony’s anxiety to give defence personnel
their due. With the benches and their “physical” jurisdiction clearly defined,
aggrieved personnel ought to find it comparatively easy to seek redress in
matters of appointment, promotions or appeal against court martial verdicts.
Hopefully, not only should the adjudication process be expeditious, but at the
same time affordable.
The
issue of a separate tribunal for the Armed forces had been hanging fire for
over two decades. In 1982, the Supreme Court had suggested an independent
tribunal after pointing out several deficiencies in the existing Acts in the three
Services. It specifically pointed out the absence of remedy of appeal against
the orders of court martial and ruled that these court martial must record
reasons in support of their orders and inferences. The Supreme Court gave its
opinion after it had heard a number of super-session and court martial cases. Subsequently,
the Law Commission, in its 169th report, recommended a separate Tribunal for
prompt disposal of cases challenging such decisions in the Services.
Unfortunately,
the present grievance redressal machinery in the three Services is faulty,
psychologically-biased with the odds heavily stacked against the complainants! Moreover,
undue delay in adjudication of cases causes stress, hardship, anxiety and
misery to the aggrieved soldier. This is one of the causes, which has led to the
recent rise in cases of either the jawans
committing suicide or attacking their superiors.
Regrettably,
even though a jawan can go up to the
Services Chief for justice, he fails to get fair treatment at the hands of his immediate
boss, who in fact processes the complaint. Worse, the complainant is neither
informed about the fate of his petition nor apprised of his superior authority’s
comments. Sadly, there is no independent judicial forum to review the executive
decision of the officers in the command ladder.
Let us hope that there will be no delay in
selecting/appointing the key judicial and Service personnel, their support
staff and other nitty-gritty infrastructure requirement as the Tribunal has
already been delayed by almost 20 years and a large number of defence personnel
have suffered due to infirmities which exist at the decision-making authorities’
levels. The new
tribunal is expected to fix accountability and ensure greater discipline among
the officers and, above all, enhance the morale of the defence personnel.
The mix of
judicial and defence members of the Tribunal ought to provide the right
balance, and hopefully not dilute (an apprehension of some top officers) the
military’s critical discipline and ethos. The mix would also save the Judge
Advocate-General’s branch from having to function in High Courts across the
country, often having to enlighten the judges that different criteria should apply
in a military system.
Since there
will be a singular focus to the Tribunal, and desirably a uniform bottom-line
to the verdicts, a revised and appropriate judicial code could develop. Those
involved insist that the present system of military justice is not draconian
though highly disciplined, the Tribunal would serve as the cushioning appellate
authority, and the deemed-stigma of approaching a civil court would be averted.
The appellate authority should lie with the apex court against the Tribunal’s
decision and not with the High Courts.
But, for
those senior officers whose concept of discipline has never graduated above the
parade ground, the movement towards making the Tribunal a reality will be
highly appreciated. Alas, even as the minister merits applause on this score,
there can be no suppressing a negative sentiment: there must be some awful
shortcomings in the armed forces’ functioning with 9,800 cases being taken to
the High Courts.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|