{"id":224063,"date":"2020-01-09T10:46:24","date_gmt":"2020-01-09T05:16:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=224063"},"modified":"2020-01-10T10:55:59","modified_gmt":"2020-01-10T05:25:59","slug":"non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong>: In a case where an Armed Force Tribunal ordered retrial on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 had not been followed, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em> non-compliance of Rule 180 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial<\/em> <\/span>as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to direct re-trial on any other ground except that mentioned in Section 16(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court was hearing a case where, in a firing incident, a soldier (respondent) killed a fellow soldier, while he himself sustained gunshot injuries. The General Court Martial convicted the respondent for murder and for attempting to commit suicide. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to be dismissed from service. The respondent then challenged the said decision before the Armed Force Tribunal, primarily, on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Rules. It was held by the Tribunal that Rule 180 provides that a person against whom an inquiry is conducted to be present throughout the inquiry. The Tribunal concluded that the entire trial against the Respondent is vitiated as there was no doubt that the Respondent was denied permission to be present when statements of witnesses were being recorded before the Court of Inquiry.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>Rule 180 deals with the procedure for inquiry where the character of a person who is subject to the Act is involved<\/em>.<\/span> When an inquiry affects the character or military reputation of a person who is subject to the Act, full opportunity has to be provided to the person throughout the inquiry, of making any statement, of giving any evidence he may wish to make or give, and of cross-examining any evidence.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The power conferred on the Tribunal to direct re-trial by the Court Martial is only on the grounds mentioned in Section 16(2). <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>The Tribunal is competent to direct re-trial only in case of evidence made available to the Tribunal was not produced before the Court Martial and if it appears to the Tribunal that the interests of justice requires a re-trial<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When the matter reached before the Supreme Court, appellant had argued that As the Respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses as provided in Rule 22 and during the Court Martial proceedings which he did not utilize, there is no failure of justice. It was further submitted that Court of Inquiry is only for collection of evidence and any violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 180 does not vitiate the proceedings of the Court Martial.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the collection of evidence by the Court of Inquiry is a crucial stage during which the accused is entitled to be provided with an opportunity as contemplated in Rule 180. Violation of the procedure prescribed in Rule 180 would render the entire proceedings void.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Considering the provisions in question and various rulings, the Court concluded:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify; padding-left: 40px;\">(a) The proceedings of a Court of Inquiry are in the nature of a fact-finding inquiry conducted at a pre-investigation stage;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify; padding-left: 40px;\">(b) The accused is entitled to full opportunity as provided in Rule 180;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify; padding-left: 40px;\">(c) As a final order of conviction is on the basis of a trial by the Court Martial, irregularities at the earlier stages cannot be the basis for setting aside the order passed by the Court Martial;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify; padding-left: 40px;\">(d) If the accused raises a ground of non-compliance of Rule 180 during the framing of charge or during the recording of summary of evidence, the authorities have to rectify the defect as compliance of the procedure prescribed in Rule 180 is obligatory.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It, hence, held that the Tribunal has competence only to order re-trial by the Court Martial and that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>there is no power conferred on the Tribunal to direct the matter to be remanded to a stage prior to the Court Martial proceedings<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[Union of India v. Ex. No. 3192684 W. Sep. Virendra Kumar, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/HlY6bEhe\"><b>2020 SCC OnLine SC 12<\/b><\/a>, decided on 07.01.2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: In a case where an Armed Force Tribunal ordered retrial on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Rule 180 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[39209,39211,13621,39210,13581],"class_list":["post-224063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-armed-force-triunal","tag-army-rules","tag-court-martial","tag-court-of-inquiry","tag-retrial"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: In a case where an Armed Force Tribunal ordered retrial on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Rule 180\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-09T05:16:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-01-10T05:25:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/\",\"name\":\"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-09T05:16:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-10T05:25:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial","og_description":"Supreme Court: In a case where an Armed Force Tribunal ordered retrial on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Rule 180","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-09T05:16:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-01-10T05:25:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/","name":"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2020-01-09T05:16:24+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-10T05:25:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/non-compliance-of-rule-180-of-the-army-rules-1954-cannot-be-a-ground-for-ordering-a-re-trial\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Non-compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":224975,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-january-2020\/","url_meta":{"origin":224063,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 January 2020","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"TOP STORIES Citizenship (Amendment) Act row| No stay on CAA as SC asks Centre to file response within 4 weeks Country is going through difficult times: SC while refusing urgent hearing on plea seeking to declare CAA as constitutional Sabarimala Case| 9-Judge Bench asks advocates to fine-tune the \u2018broad\u2019 issues\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":103521,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/02\/armed-forces-tribunals-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-the-appeals-arising-out-of-court-martial-verdicts-qua-gref-personnel\/","url_meta":{"origin":224063,"position":1},"title":"Armed Forces Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeals arising out of court martial verdicts qua GREF personnel","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 2, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to the scope of power of Armed Forces Tribunal to hear the appeals arising out of court martial verdicts qua GREF personnel, the Court held that denial of jurisdiction to the said tribunal would be contrary to the Army Act, 1950 and the provisions\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330698,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/13\/appointment-junior-rank-officer-judge-advocate-recording-reasons-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":224063,"position":2},"title":"Not recording reasons in convening order for appointing junior ranked officer as Judge Advocate invalidates Court Martial proceedings: SC","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 13, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court stated that subsequent mentioning of the reasons for appointment of junior ranked officer as Judge Advocate in the appellant\u2019s copy of the convening order, especially after putting signatures by the issuing authority, was unauthorised and impermissible.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"non recording reasons appointment junior ranked officer Judge Advocate","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/non-recording-reasons-appointment-junior-ranked-officer-Judge-Advocate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/non-recording-reasons-appointment-junior-ranked-officer-Judge-Advocate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/non-recording-reasons-appointment-junior-ranked-officer-Judge-Advocate.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/non-recording-reasons-appointment-junior-ranked-officer-Judge-Advocate.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242245,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/14\/aft-mental-disorders-can-escape-detection-benefit-of-doubt-cannot-be-given-to-the-applicant-merely-on-the-ground-that-disease-could-not-be-detected-at-the-time-of-enrolment-tribunal-denied-disabili\/","url_meta":{"origin":224063,"position":3},"title":"AFT| Mental disorders can escape detection, benefit of doubt cannot be given to the applicant merely on ground that disease could not be detected at the time of enrolment; Tribunal denied disability pension","author":"Editor","date":"January 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Armed Forces Tribunal: Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava (Chairperson) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve (Member) A, allowed the application seeking directions to quash orders rejecting disability pension to the applicant. The applicant was enrolled in Indian Army on 17-06-2013 and was invalided out from service on 16-12-2013\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Armed Forces Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363736,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/14\/supreme-court-substitution-of-court-martial-finding-by-armed-forces-tribunal\/","url_meta":{"origin":224063,"position":4},"title":"Armed Forces Tribunal has power to substitute finding of Court Martial &#038; pass sentence afresh: SC","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 14, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cScope of interference in an appeal with the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal is limited. This Court in appellate jurisdiction would interfere if the order were shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"substitution of court martial","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/substitution-of-court-martial.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/substitution-of-court-martial.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/substitution-of-court-martial.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/substitution-of-court-martial.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219059,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/03\/aft-for-calculating-disability-pension-alcohol-dependence-syndrome-can-neither-be-attributable-to-nor-aggravated-by-military-service-since-it-is-a-matter-personal-choice\/","url_meta":{"origin":224063,"position":5},"title":"AFT | For calculating disability pension, \u2018Alcohol Dependence Syndrome\u2019 can neither be attributable to nor aggravated by military service","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Armed Force Tribunal (AFT): A Division Bench of Justice Virender Singh (Chairperson) and Air Marshal B.B.P Sinha (Member) dismissed an application by the applicant under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The applicant was enrolled in Army in 2003 as a Signalman and was invalided out from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Armed Forces Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224063","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224063"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224063\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224063"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}