Premier National Defence Academy- 60 years old
Comment: MoD and AHQ should commence proceedings to court martial the Scamster prior to his retirement.
Showing posts with label Court Martial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court Martial. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2012
Cash-for-jobs: NDA ex-commandant to be grilled
Premier National Defence Academy- 60 years old
Comment: MoD and AHQ should commence proceedings to court martial the Scamster prior to his retirement.
Monday, September 26, 2011
AFT: Army Chief can’t terminate services
Grants relief to Lt-Col acquitted by court martial twice
Vijay Mohan/TNS
Chandigarh, September 25
In a significant ruling, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) today ruled that the Chief of the Army Staff is not vested with any powers to terminate the services of any officer. This power is held by the Central Government alone, which can be exercised in exceptional cases only on the recommendations of the Army Chief.
Granting relief to a Lieutenant-Colonel against whom administrative action was initiated for alleged irregularities despite having been held not guilty twice by a general court martial earlier, the tribunal held that plenary powers under Section 19 of the Army Act read with Rule 14 have been reserved with the Central Government only and these cannot be resorted to by any other person.
The court observed court martial proceedings were held against Lt-Col Harish Kumar twice and on both occasions, the findings were returned as “not guilty” and then administrative action was resorted to under the aforementioned provisions by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command.
“Leave aside the GOC-in-C, even the Chef of the Army Staff cannot resort to this power. Therefore, the order passed by the GOC-in-C awarding a severe displeasure cannot be sustained,” the tribunal observed while quashing the order and allowing all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
The petitioner’s counsel, Maj SS Pandey told The Tribune that since he had been acquitted by a GCM twice, no action could have been taken subsequently on the same charges by issuing a show-cause notice and the action of the respondents was arbitrary and actuated with malice.
Pandey said the petitioner was responsible for recruiting civilian labourers in the Ordnance Corps. After the end of the selection process, he received three letters from the Defence Ministry through the Army Headquarters, which contained names of some individuals, seeking help in recruitment. The petitioner had expressed his inability to accommodate such a request. Later, based upon “mild and baseless” allegations, a court of inquiry was ordered to investigate any malpractices in the recruitment.
AFT: Army Chief can’t terminate services
Vijay Mohan/TNS
Chandigarh, September 25
In a significant ruling, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) today ruled that the Chief of the Army Staff is not vested with any powers to terminate the services of any officer. This power is held by the Central Government alone, which can be exercised in exceptional cases only on the recommendations of the Army Chief.
Granting relief to a Lieutenant-Colonel against whom administrative action was initiated for alleged irregularities despite having been held not guilty twice by a general court martial earlier, the tribunal held that plenary powers under Section 19 of the Army Act read with Rule 14 have been reserved with the Central Government only and these cannot be resorted to by any other person.
The court observed court martial proceedings were held against Lt-Col Harish Kumar twice and on both occasions, the findings were returned as “not guilty” and then administrative action was resorted to under the aforementioned provisions by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command.
“Leave aside the GOC-in-C, even the Chef of the Army Staff cannot resort to this power. Therefore, the order passed by the GOC-in-C awarding a severe displeasure cannot be sustained,” the tribunal observed while quashing the order and allowing all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
The petitioner’s counsel, Maj SS Pandey told The Tribune that since he had been acquitted by a GCM twice, no action could have been taken subsequently on the same charges by issuing a show-cause notice and the action of the respondents was arbitrary and actuated with malice.
Pandey said the petitioner was responsible for recruiting civilian labourers in the Ordnance Corps. After the end of the selection process, he received three letters from the Defence Ministry through the Army Headquarters, which contained names of some individuals, seeking help in recruitment. The petitioner had expressed his inability to accommodate such a request. Later, based upon “mild and baseless” allegations, a court of inquiry was ordered to investigate any malpractices in the recruitment.
AFT: Army Chief can’t terminate services
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
High Court ruling can make the Armed Forces Tribunal infructuous
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that High Courts are constitutionally empowered to review decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal, even though the Armed Forces Tribunal Act stipulates that such appeals lie directly with the Supreme Court. The Tribunal was set up for quick redressal of grievances and judicial review of court martial orders, relieving the High Courts of a huge backlog. The ruling defeats this very purpose and takes us back to square one.
High Court ruling can make the Armed Forces Tribunal infructuous by Lt Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)
THE defence services had been clamouring for an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) for decades, essentially because the civilian courts took years and even decades to decide their cases. These inordinate delays had an adverse impact on discipline, morale and functioning of the military. Take just two cases. The Sixth Pay Commission gave Brigadiers more pension than Major Generals. It took the Punjab and Haryana High Court three long years to address this simple anomaly. Some five years later the case is still doing the rounds of the Supreme Court. Air Vice Marshal Masand, with outstanding service record and a pilot of great repute with the Vir Chakra to his credit, was superseded for promotion to the rank of Air Marshal. Long after he retired, he is still fighting his case in the civilian courts. Perhaps his children will have to continue the fight after he has left the scene.
Since the AFT has come into existence, its benches spread across the country have done a commendable job and have been deciding cases, not only with great scrutiny and application of mind, but with equal promptitude. They are moving quicker that the fast track courts, reinforcing the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.They have been able to decide cases that have been hanging fire in civilian courts for as long as half a century. Though the AFT is established on the lines of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), they differ in one essential aspect in that the AFT reviews cases of defence services which have separate laws and courts of their own. These courts have full judicial powers. The AFT was set up after long prevarication, dithering and delay, recommendations of the law commission and innumerable articles in the national press pressing for its dire need.
The composition of the AFT was worked out with a view to relate it to the composition of the courts whose verdict, besides other service issues, it would also be called upon to review. This was so because civilian courts are generally not conversant with the military's working, systems, ethos, environment, and the circumstances under which it is required to operate and discharge its duties in peace and war. These special conditions require a rigorous law, quite apart from the general civilian laws. There was a time that for this obvious reason, civilian courts were somewhat reluctant to take on the military's cases. However civilian courts, for no apparent reason, now seem to adopt an altogether different approach.
As per the AFT Act, rulings and verdicts of the AFT can be reviewed only by the Supreme Court. The very purpose of setting up the AFT was to provide a dedicated forum for quick redressal of grievances and judicial review of court martial orders with the provision for just a one-stage review (Supreme Court in this case) for armed forces personnel, as disposal of cases in civilian courts took a long time and this inordinate delay impinged on the discipline and good order in the defence services.
The Delhi High Court, in its recent ruling noted that High Courts are constitutionally empowered to review decisions of the AFT, not withstanding the fact that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act of 2007 stipulated that appeals against AFT's orders would rest directly with the Apex Court. A Division Bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Suresh Kait further ruled, "AFT, being manned by personnel appointed by the executive, albeit in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, cannot be said to be truly a judicious review forum as a substitute to High Courts that are constitutional courts and the power of judicial review, being a basic feature of the Constitution, under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution is unaffected by the constitution of the AFT." Further, tribunals can perform a "supplemental as opposed to a substitutional" role vis-a-vis the high courts, the bench held.
The AFT was set up to exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to orders, findings or sentences of court martial and exercise original jurisdiction with respect to service disputes. This ruling puts the very purpose of having an AFT somewhat infructuous and takes us back to square one. It is in fact, a leap forward into the past. It will bring about the same painful and frustrating delays and their impact on the military's discipline and functioning as they existed before the promulgation of the AFT Act. The Delhi High Court, in its infinite wisdom, deep understanding of the Constitution and legal acumen, has turned the very idea and rationale of setting up the AFT on its head.
Now article 227(4) of the Constitution, on which the Delhi High Court has relied in passing the above noted order, provides superintendence of High Court over all courts/tribunals falling in its jurisdiction but it specifically excludes court martial cases. Therefore and quite simply and logically, it cannot have power of superintedence over the Armed Forces Tribunal that has appellate jurisdiction over verdicts of court martial cases. Further when there is specific provision for appeal against verdicts/orders of the Tribunal under sections 30/31 of the Act to only the Supreme Court, then how could a writ petition be entertained by a high court.
High Courts are already overloaded with work and the backlog runs into a million cases and it is to bypass this legal quagmire and the necessity for quick disposal of defence services cases that the AFT Act of 2007 was promulgated by the government as an act of Parliament and as such became a law, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was in the consultative loop. In case the rulings of the AFT are to be subjected to review by the high courts and later by the Supreme Court then the purpose of establishing the AFT is defeated.
On an earlier occasion, a High Court gave a ruling that court martial should record a "speaking order". Now the composition and working of a court martial is akin to the jury system, which for too obvious a reason does not record a "speaking order". Unfortunately, defence services did not contest this ruling in the Supreme Court and court martial proceedings are now required to be accompanied by a speaking order. The judge advocate, who is on the court martial merely to render advice to the members on purely technical legal issues and has no voting right, is the only one who is qualified to write a speaking order. Consequently the judge advocate has come to exercise undue influence over the court, which in reality and practice has altered the very character and working of the court martial.
To avoid inevitable delays in the finalisation of defence services cases dealt by the AFT, in case these are subjected to review by the High Courts as well, the order of the Delhi High Court must be contested in the Supreme Court by the service headquarters. The need for early disposal of defence services cases hardly needs any emphasis.
The writer is a former Deputy Chief of the Army Staff
Fact File
The Armed Forces Tribunal was inaugurated on August 8, 2009. It came into being after the Armed Forces Tribunal Act was passed by Parliament in 2007.
The Act provides for adjudication by the tribunal of disputes and complaints about commission, appointments, enrolment and service conditions in respect of those covered by the Army, Air Force and Navy Acts, respectively, and hearing of appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of court martial. The Tribunal has original jurisdiction in service matters and appellate jurisdiction in court martial matters.
In addition to the Principal Bench located at New Delhi, it has eight regional benches comprising one or more courts at Kochi, Jaipur, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Lucknow, Guwahati and Chandigarh.
Each court is held by a two-member bench comprisng the judicial member, a retired High Court judge and an administrative member, a retired service officer of the rank of Major General or above. This enables the court to draw upon legal as well as service expertise while deciding cases. Most cases pertaining to armed forces personnel that were earlier pending before various High Courts have been transferred to the AFT.
Quote — unquote
"The Sixth Pay Commission gave Brigadiers more pension than Major Generals. It took the Punjab and Haryana High Court three long years to address this simple anomaly.
The Tribunal is moving quicker than the fast track courts and it has been able to decide cases that have been hanging fire in civilian courts for as long as half a century.
The judge advocate has come to exercise undue influence over the court, which in reality and practice has altered the very character and working of the court martial."
High Court ruling can make the Armed Forces Tribunal infructuous
High Court ruling can make the Armed Forces Tribunal infructuous by Lt Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)
THE defence services had been clamouring for an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) for decades, essentially because the civilian courts took years and even decades to decide their cases. These inordinate delays had an adverse impact on discipline, morale and functioning of the military. Take just two cases. The Sixth Pay Commission gave Brigadiers more pension than Major Generals. It took the Punjab and Haryana High Court three long years to address this simple anomaly. Some five years later the case is still doing the rounds of the Supreme Court. Air Vice Marshal Masand, with outstanding service record and a pilot of great repute with the Vir Chakra to his credit, was superseded for promotion to the rank of Air Marshal. Long after he retired, he is still fighting his case in the civilian courts. Perhaps his children will have to continue the fight after he has left the scene.
Since the AFT has come into existence, its benches spread across the country have done a commendable job and have been deciding cases, not only with great scrutiny and application of mind, but with equal promptitude. They are moving quicker that the fast track courts, reinforcing the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.They have been able to decide cases that have been hanging fire in civilian courts for as long as half a century. Though the AFT is established on the lines of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), they differ in one essential aspect in that the AFT reviews cases of defence services which have separate laws and courts of their own. These courts have full judicial powers. The AFT was set up after long prevarication, dithering and delay, recommendations of the law commission and innumerable articles in the national press pressing for its dire need.
The composition of the AFT was worked out with a view to relate it to the composition of the courts whose verdict, besides other service issues, it would also be called upon to review. This was so because civilian courts are generally not conversant with the military's working, systems, ethos, environment, and the circumstances under which it is required to operate and discharge its duties in peace and war. These special conditions require a rigorous law, quite apart from the general civilian laws. There was a time that for this obvious reason, civilian courts were somewhat reluctant to take on the military's cases. However civilian courts, for no apparent reason, now seem to adopt an altogether different approach.
As per the AFT Act, rulings and verdicts of the AFT can be reviewed only by the Supreme Court. The very purpose of setting up the AFT was to provide a dedicated forum for quick redressal of grievances and judicial review of court martial orders with the provision for just a one-stage review (Supreme Court in this case) for armed forces personnel, as disposal of cases in civilian courts took a long time and this inordinate delay impinged on the discipline and good order in the defence services.
The Delhi High Court, in its recent ruling noted that High Courts are constitutionally empowered to review decisions of the AFT, not withstanding the fact that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act of 2007 stipulated that appeals against AFT's orders would rest directly with the Apex Court. A Division Bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Suresh Kait further ruled, "AFT, being manned by personnel appointed by the executive, albeit in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, cannot be said to be truly a judicious review forum as a substitute to High Courts that are constitutional courts and the power of judicial review, being a basic feature of the Constitution, under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution is unaffected by the constitution of the AFT." Further, tribunals can perform a "supplemental as opposed to a substitutional" role vis-a-vis the high courts, the bench held.
The AFT was set up to exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to orders, findings or sentences of court martial and exercise original jurisdiction with respect to service disputes. This ruling puts the very purpose of having an AFT somewhat infructuous and takes us back to square one. It is in fact, a leap forward into the past. It will bring about the same painful and frustrating delays and their impact on the military's discipline and functioning as they existed before the promulgation of the AFT Act. The Delhi High Court, in its infinite wisdom, deep understanding of the Constitution and legal acumen, has turned the very idea and rationale of setting up the AFT on its head.
Now article 227(4) of the Constitution, on which the Delhi High Court has relied in passing the above noted order, provides superintendence of High Court over all courts/tribunals falling in its jurisdiction but it specifically excludes court martial cases. Therefore and quite simply and logically, it cannot have power of superintedence over the Armed Forces Tribunal that has appellate jurisdiction over verdicts of court martial cases. Further when there is specific provision for appeal against verdicts/orders of the Tribunal under sections 30/31 of the Act to only the Supreme Court, then how could a writ petition be entertained by a high court.
High Courts are already overloaded with work and the backlog runs into a million cases and it is to bypass this legal quagmire and the necessity for quick disposal of defence services cases that the AFT Act of 2007 was promulgated by the government as an act of Parliament and as such became a law, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was in the consultative loop. In case the rulings of the AFT are to be subjected to review by the high courts and later by the Supreme Court then the purpose of establishing the AFT is defeated.
On an earlier occasion, a High Court gave a ruling that court martial should record a "speaking order". Now the composition and working of a court martial is akin to the jury system, which for too obvious a reason does not record a "speaking order". Unfortunately, defence services did not contest this ruling in the Supreme Court and court martial proceedings are now required to be accompanied by a speaking order. The judge advocate, who is on the court martial merely to render advice to the members on purely technical legal issues and has no voting right, is the only one who is qualified to write a speaking order. Consequently the judge advocate has come to exercise undue influence over the court, which in reality and practice has altered the very character and working of the court martial.
To avoid inevitable delays in the finalisation of defence services cases dealt by the AFT, in case these are subjected to review by the High Courts as well, the order of the Delhi High Court must be contested in the Supreme Court by the service headquarters. The need for early disposal of defence services cases hardly needs any emphasis.
The writer is a former Deputy Chief of the Army Staff
Fact File
The Armed Forces Tribunal was inaugurated on August 8, 2009. It came into being after the Armed Forces Tribunal Act was passed by Parliament in 2007.
The Act provides for adjudication by the tribunal of disputes and complaints about commission, appointments, enrolment and service conditions in respect of those covered by the Army, Air Force and Navy Acts, respectively, and hearing of appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of court martial. The Tribunal has original jurisdiction in service matters and appellate jurisdiction in court martial matters.
In addition to the Principal Bench located at New Delhi, it has eight regional benches comprising one or more courts at Kochi, Jaipur, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Lucknow, Guwahati and Chandigarh.
Each court is held by a two-member bench comprisng the judicial member, a retired High Court judge and an administrative member, a retired service officer of the rank of Major General or above. This enables the court to draw upon legal as well as service expertise while deciding cases. Most cases pertaining to armed forces personnel that were earlier pending before various High Courts have been transferred to the AFT.
Quote — unquote
"The Sixth Pay Commission gave Brigadiers more pension than Major Generals. It took the Punjab and Haryana High Court three long years to address this simple anomaly.
The Tribunal is moving quicker than the fast track courts and it has been able to decide cases that have been hanging fire in civilian courts for as long as half a century.
The judge advocate has come to exercise undue influence over the court, which in reality and practice has altered the very character and working of the court martial."
High Court ruling can make the Armed Forces Tribunal infructuous
Monday, June 21, 2010
IAF officer gets boot for lewd remarks
TNN, Jun 11, 2010, 03.32am IST
NEW DELHI: Even as Army conducts a formal court of inquiry against its engineer-in-chief Lt-Gen A K Nanda after a colonel's wife complained against him, an IAF court martial has ordered a wing commander's dismissal after finding him guilty of "outraging the modesty" of a junior woman officer.
Wing Commander H S Virk, posted in Agra, was tried by the GCM (general court martial) in Bareilly last month, after the woman officer alleged he had passed objectionable comments against her.
While a confirmation of the court-martial sentence by the Allahabad-based Central Air Command chief is awaited, Virk has approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), contending he is being kept in "illegal detention" by IAF.
Appearing before the AFT on Virk's behalf, his counsel Rajiv Manglik said the GCM had recommended the wing commander's dismissal but IAF had kept him in confinement even though there was no sentence of imprisonment.
IAF, in turn, contended Virk could not be released as the sentence recommended by the GCM was yet to be confirmed by higher authorities. The AFT, however, directed IAF to release the officer on bail and to send him on leave for two weeks.
IAF officer gets boot for lewd remarks
Col, Lt Col face court martial for Rs 10-crore milk scam: Powder purchased despite adequate stock in store by Vijay Mohan Tribune News Service
NEW DELHI: Even as Army conducts a formal court of inquiry against its engineer-in-chief Lt-Gen A K Nanda after a colonel's wife complained against him, an IAF court martial has ordered a wing commander's dismissal after finding him guilty of "outraging the modesty" of a junior woman officer.
Wing Commander H S Virk, posted in Agra, was tried by the GCM (general court martial) in Bareilly last month, after the woman officer alleged he had passed objectionable comments against her.
While a confirmation of the court-martial sentence by the Allahabad-based Central Air Command chief is awaited, Virk has approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), contending he is being kept in "illegal detention" by IAF.
Appearing before the AFT on Virk's behalf, his counsel Rajiv Manglik said the GCM had recommended the wing commander's dismissal but IAF had kept him in confinement even though there was no sentence of imprisonment.
IAF, in turn, contended Virk could not be released as the sentence recommended by the GCM was yet to be confirmed by higher authorities. The AFT, however, directed IAF to release the officer on bail and to send him on leave for two weeks.
IAF officer gets boot for lewd remarks
Col, Lt Col face court martial for Rs 10-crore milk scam: Powder purchased despite adequate stock in store by Vijay Mohan Tribune News Service
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Indian Army: Court martial for not eating is too much
The Hindu: New Delhi, June 9, 2010
Fifteen years ago, an Army jawan was dismissed for disobeying a superior's order to eat food. His dismissal has now been set aside by an Armed Forces Tribunal.
Signalman Ram Kumar Maurya was summarily court-martialled by the officiating commanding officer for “disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer,” as he refused to eat food after having been punished on another charge of indiscipline.
On Maurya's petition, a tribunal Bench headed by Justice S.S. Kulshreshtha said the “disproportionality” of the sentence was “apparent” and “the summary court martial proceedings, including the sentence, are set aside.” Maurya would be deemed to be in service till the date he reached pensionable service.
While serving at 1 Strike Corps in Mathura, Maurya was awarded a 28-day simple sentence (of confinement) by his commanding officer on disciplinary grounds on April 6, 1995. In protest, he refused to eat food despite counselling by his company commander.
As he continued to be defiant, officers in the unit began disciplinary proceedings in form of a summary court martial and he was dismissed.
Maurya contended that “he could not have been ordered to consume his food. Whether he needed to eat or not was a personal decision and the Army could not order him to eat food.”
He termed the charges “incorrect, illegal and unsustainable” and said the punishment meted out to him was “grossly disproportionate” to the offence. Maurya also raised questions on initiating disciplinary action on grounds that he was placed under a medical category and diagnosed as a ‘psychiatric patient' and could not be court-martialled.
The case was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the tribunal after it was launched in August 2009.
Court martial for not eating is too much'
Moderator Comment
Red Tabbed full Colonels command units. How come officiating CO is made a scapegoat? Sounds like the red tabs always see red and no reason!
Fifteen years ago, an Army jawan was dismissed for disobeying a superior's order to eat food. His dismissal has now been set aside by an Armed Forces Tribunal.
Signalman Ram Kumar Maurya was summarily court-martialled by the officiating commanding officer for “disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer,” as he refused to eat food after having been punished on another charge of indiscipline.
On Maurya's petition, a tribunal Bench headed by Justice S.S. Kulshreshtha said the “disproportionality” of the sentence was “apparent” and “the summary court martial proceedings, including the sentence, are set aside.” Maurya would be deemed to be in service till the date he reached pensionable service.
While serving at 1 Strike Corps in Mathura, Maurya was awarded a 28-day simple sentence (of confinement) by his commanding officer on disciplinary grounds on April 6, 1995. In protest, he refused to eat food despite counselling by his company commander.
As he continued to be defiant, officers in the unit began disciplinary proceedings in form of a summary court martial and he was dismissed.
Maurya contended that “he could not have been ordered to consume his food. Whether he needed to eat or not was a personal decision and the Army could not order him to eat food.”
He termed the charges “incorrect, illegal and unsustainable” and said the punishment meted out to him was “grossly disproportionate” to the offence. Maurya also raised questions on initiating disciplinary action on grounds that he was placed under a medical category and diagnosed as a ‘psychiatric patient' and could not be court-martialled.
The case was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the tribunal after it was launched in August 2009.
Court martial for not eating is too much'
Moderator Comment
Red Tabbed full Colonels command units. How come officiating CO is made a scapegoat? Sounds like the red tabs always see red and no reason!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash defends himself in Sukhna case
New Delhi, February 28, 2010
Former Military Secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, facing disciplinary action in the Sukhna land case, has said that Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor did not apply his mind fully to his reply to the show cause notice issued to him for administrative action in the matter.
In an interview to journalist Karan Thapar on the Devil's Advocate show on television channel CNN IBN, Lt Gen Prakash said that the report of the Court of Inquiry was received by the Headquarters of the Eastern Command around December 22 or 23.
Read Full article:
Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash defends himself in Sukhna case
Former Military Secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, facing disciplinary action in the Sukhna land case, has said that Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor did not apply his mind fully to his reply to the show cause notice issued to him for administrative action in the matter.
In an interview to journalist Karan Thapar on the Devil's Advocate show on television channel CNN IBN, Lt Gen Prakash said that the report of the Court of Inquiry was received by the Headquarters of the Eastern Command around December 22 or 23.
Read Full article:
Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash defends himself in Sukhna case
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Stay on Sukhna Scam general’s court martial
Sumit Saxena , Hindustan Times New Delhi, February 23, 2010
The Armed Forces Tribunal on Monday stayed court martial proceeding against retired military secretary Lt Gen Avadhesh Prakash in the Sukna land scam.
The court martial, ordered against Prakash after his indictment by a court of inquiry (COI), was to start on February 25 in Kolkata.
A two-member tribunal bench quashed the findings of the COI, which had indicted Prakash for using his official position to pressure the staff of the 33, Corps — based in Sukna, West Bengal — to facilitate the transfer of a plot of land to his family friend, Dilip Agarwal.
The Bench ordered a fresh CoI, to be completed within two months.
Observing that army rule was “violated” during the COI, the Bench said Prakash would get the chance to cross-examine the six witnesses who deposed against him. “It will be open to the petitioner to lead any evidence by calling witness or producing documentary evidence,” it said.
The issue of cross-examination was a major plea of the retired officer against the COI.
“The court has given us a fair chance to defend ourselves. We have been falsely implicated,” Jyoti Singh, counsel for Prakash, said.
Stay on Sukhna Scam general’s court martial
MOD Land Scams
LUCKNOW: In a significant judgment, the Allahabad high court has directed the secretary, ministry of defence, to instruct all the command heads of Indian military to map all defence lands and estates and ensure zero unauthorised occupancy or encroachment thereon.
After having reasoned out the importance and necessity of the defence land, the court expressed concern over the encroachment of defence land by land mafia and land-grabbers around the defence estates in different districts of Uttar Pradesh and beyond. "It has been brought to the notice of the court that entertainment centres and commercial establishments run by private parties are being brought up uninterruptedly on army land," the judgment stated.
The court also observed that the military commanders heading the commands owe it to the nation to ensure that the land earmarked for military purposes does not go into unauthorised hands.
High Court to MoD: Crack down on encroachment in Cantonments
Comment:
In spite of the clear orders and existing rulings the GOC- in- C Commands are spineless in evicting the encroachers. If the Military commanders cannot protect its own lands how can they be trusted to defend the National territory and integrity? In Tamilnadu over 50% Military Lands have been usurped and assigned to mafia and land grabbers by MOD through dubious means of NOC, leasing, bribes and other corrupt methods. The same is the case in each and every cantonment of the Nation.
The Armed Forces Tribunal on Monday stayed court martial proceeding against retired military secretary Lt Gen Avadhesh Prakash in the Sukna land scam.
The court martial, ordered against Prakash after his indictment by a court of inquiry (COI), was to start on February 25 in Kolkata.
A two-member tribunal bench quashed the findings of the COI, which had indicted Prakash for using his official position to pressure the staff of the 33, Corps — based in Sukna, West Bengal — to facilitate the transfer of a plot of land to his family friend, Dilip Agarwal.
The Bench ordered a fresh CoI, to be completed within two months.
Observing that army rule was “violated” during the COI, the Bench said Prakash would get the chance to cross-examine the six witnesses who deposed against him. “It will be open to the petitioner to lead any evidence by calling witness or producing documentary evidence,” it said.
The issue of cross-examination was a major plea of the retired officer against the COI.
“The court has given us a fair chance to defend ourselves. We have been falsely implicated,” Jyoti Singh, counsel for Prakash, said.
Stay on Sukhna Scam general’s court martial
MOD Land Scams
LUCKNOW: In a significant judgment, the Allahabad high court has directed the secretary, ministry of defence, to instruct all the command heads of Indian military to map all defence lands and estates and ensure zero unauthorised occupancy or encroachment thereon.
After having reasoned out the importance and necessity of the defence land, the court expressed concern over the encroachment of defence land by land mafia and land-grabbers around the defence estates in different districts of Uttar Pradesh and beyond. "It has been brought to the notice of the court that entertainment centres and commercial establishments run by private parties are being brought up uninterruptedly on army land," the judgment stated.
The court also observed that the military commanders heading the commands owe it to the nation to ensure that the land earmarked for military purposes does not go into unauthorised hands.
High Court to MoD: Crack down on encroachment in Cantonments
Comment:
In spite of the clear orders and existing rulings the GOC- in- C Commands are spineless in evicting the encroachers. If the Military commanders cannot protect its own lands how can they be trusted to defend the National territory and integrity? In Tamilnadu over 50% Military Lands have been usurped and assigned to mafia and land grabbers by MOD through dubious means of NOC, leasing, bribes and other corrupt methods. The same is the case in each and every cantonment of the Nation.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
There is a 'cover-up' in Sukna land scam case: Army
Press Trust Of India New Delhi, February 08, 2010
The Army on Monday said there was a "cover up" in the Sukna land scam case in Darjeeling in which three Lt Generals and a Major General are in the dock and it needs to go to the "bottom" of the issue.
This was stated by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising while representing the Army in the Armed Forces Tribunal which has been moved by former Military Secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash against his Court Martial in connection with the case.
Prakash has questioned the Army's decision to order disciplinary action, which entails court martial, against him after deciding to take administrative action which does not necessarily lead to court martial.
Justifying the Army's action, Jaising told the two-member Tribunal headed by Justice A K Mathur that the administrative action was never started and the Army was within its right to initiate disciplinary action against him.
"There is a cover-up going on and we have to find out who is at the bottom of this," she said about the land scam case in which Prakash and three other Generals have been indicted by a Court of Inquiry for giving a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to a private realtor to construct an educational institute on a plot of land adjacent to Sukna army base in Darjeeling.
The Tribunal, which heard both the petitioner and the defendents for three days, reserved the order.
There is a 'cover-up' in Sukna land scam case: Army
Warring army generals behind Sukhna scam?
The Army on Monday said there was a "cover up" in the Sukna land scam case in Darjeeling in which three Lt Generals and a Major General are in the dock and it needs to go to the "bottom" of the issue.
This was stated by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising while representing the Army in the Armed Forces Tribunal which has been moved by former Military Secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash against his Court Martial in connection with the case.
Prakash has questioned the Army's decision to order disciplinary action, which entails court martial, against him after deciding to take administrative action which does not necessarily lead to court martial.
Justifying the Army's action, Jaising told the two-member Tribunal headed by Justice A K Mathur that the administrative action was never started and the Army was within its right to initiate disciplinary action against him.
"There is a cover-up going on and we have to find out who is at the bottom of this," she said about the land scam case in which Prakash and three other Generals have been indicted by a Court of Inquiry for giving a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to a private realtor to construct an educational institute on a plot of land adjacent to Sukna army base in Darjeeling.
The Tribunal, which heard both the petitioner and the defendents for three days, reserved the order.
There is a 'cover-up' in Sukna land scam case: Army
Warring army generals behind Sukhna scam?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Devil's Advocate: Army chief on Sukhna land scam
Dear members,A full version of the transcript of the recent COAS interview on CNN IBN Click here
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sukhna Land Scam: Letter to Editor
WHAT SCAM SIR AND WHERE? By Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi
For nearly two months now, we have been bombarded with fusillades of what terrible crimes some senior officers of the Indian Army have committed, which even necessitated the worthy Raksha Mantri (RM) to interfere and compel the Army Chief to change his well considered orders. The media has had and will continue to have juicy ‘copy’, thanks to ‘very senior sources’ in the ministry of defence, who revel in one-upmanship of the worst kind when they get a chance to put down the army.
Let me state unequivocally that no one in the Indian Military, serving or retired, countenances a military person committing a crime and getting away with it. From the time we join the forces, it is constantly drummed into us that if discipline is the bedrock of soldiering, then crime and punishment are the other essentials to maintain and sustain discipline. At the same time, only the guilty are punished. Therefore, to insinuate that persons who have committed wrongs are being shielded, is a travesty of truth. Please remember that it was the army which took cognizance of wrongs having been committed and not the ministry or the media.
The so-called ‘scam’ is a case where a mountain has been made out of a mole hill, because it suited some vested interests to put down the army. In recent years, there has been a sustained effort to do so. It must stop before anything drastic happens. Now, a few words about the four-letter word “scam’, which has featured in every headline and breaking news. The connotations of scam in the Indian mind conjure up visions of Harshad Mehta (4000 crores); Bofors (64 crores); Fodder (950 crores); Satyam (8000 crores); Fake Stamp (171 crores) et al. The list is endless. So how does the so-called Sukhna scam compare with these? Money defrauded-nil; land ownership – not of military; land given away – nil; innuendos – thousands! I rest my case.
Much has been made of General Prakash being ‘special’ and close to the Chief. The truth is that he is one of the seven PSO’s (Principle Staff Officers), chosen for their seniority. In a hierarchical structure like that of the army, no Chief can make a junior General a PSO. The Chief selects the senior most and gives them appointments that in his wisdom they are best suited for. There are no personal agendas but the media, possibly at the behest of their ‘sources’ in the ministry, has repeatedly used the phrase ‘favourite General’. Were all previous Military Secretary’s favourites of Chiefs? Please ask the ex- Chiefs – you will be much wiser!
Let me now dwell on the procedure for investigating an offence in the army, which is elaborate and eminently fair, as the accused gets every chance for his defence. When a purported offence is brought to the notice of a commander and he judges that there is need for an investigation, he orders a court of inquiry (C of I) to find out whether an offence has indeed been committed and who all may be involved. On finalisation, the commander records his recommendations and forwards them to the next superior commander. The recommendations do not record what or how disciplinary action should be taken, as that is the prerogative of the next superior officer. This was correctly done by GOC-in-C Eastern Command, but the media was misinformed (another leak!) that he had recommended that the officer in question be brought before a court martial. This misinformation spiraled and made the case a ‘cause celebre’ unnecessarily.
On receipt by the Chief, the C of I proceedings are sent to the Judge Advocate General, for legal advice. Based on this, the Chief records his orders, wherein he specifies whether the accused is (are) to be dealt with administratively or tried by a court martial. While recording his directions, the Chief weighs how best the ends of justice will be met, what kind of message will go to the environment and the impact it will have on discipline. Dealing administratively is a simpler process unlike a court martial, but it is not exoneration by any stretch of imagination, as the accused faces even dismissal and penal deductions. Thereafter, show cause notices are issued and the Chief, taking formal cognizance, orders a Summary of Evidence. However, in this case, the government interfered mid way, perhaps for emotional or electoral reasons, thus subverting the process.
One does not like to point fingers at a senior minister, but I am constrained to do so as the venerable R M, issued an advisory to the Chief, when he had no legal authority to do so. It was a constitutionally incorrect decision and is a clear case of subverting the army’s well tested judicial system. That it was leaked to the media reflects the callous attitude of the government to the military and an attempt to interfere with ‘due process’, which is the hallmark of justice and jurisprudence. This is obviously demoralising for the military and deserves the severest condemnation.
I see this case as one where the ministry is playing their favourite game of divide and rule, where they seem to have surpassed even the British, who were the original architects of this policy. A change of Chiefs is due in two months and here is the ministry undermining both the present incumbent as well as his successor. This will then be used against the next Chief to ‘keep him in his place’. This is not the first time the ministry has done this; it seems to have become a habit with it. Besides the institutional damage, it is clearly a case of disloyalty to the nation. The nation must not sit quiet but question the motives of these individuals who are bent on disparaging the Chiefs of our military, all honourable men, in this churlish manner.
The writer is a former Vice Chief of Army Staff.
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi (Retd)
For nearly two months now, we have been bombarded with fusillades of what terrible crimes some senior officers of the Indian Army have committed, which even necessitated the worthy Raksha Mantri (RM) to interfere and compel the Army Chief to change his well considered orders. The media has had and will continue to have juicy ‘copy’, thanks to ‘very senior sources’ in the ministry of defence, who revel in one-upmanship of the worst kind when they get a chance to put down the army.
Let me state unequivocally that no one in the Indian Military, serving or retired, countenances a military person committing a crime and getting away with it. From the time we join the forces, it is constantly drummed into us that if discipline is the bedrock of soldiering, then crime and punishment are the other essentials to maintain and sustain discipline. At the same time, only the guilty are punished. Therefore, to insinuate that persons who have committed wrongs are being shielded, is a travesty of truth. Please remember that it was the army which took cognizance of wrongs having been committed and not the ministry or the media.
The so-called ‘scam’ is a case where a mountain has been made out of a mole hill, because it suited some vested interests to put down the army. In recent years, there has been a sustained effort to do so. It must stop before anything drastic happens. Now, a few words about the four-letter word “scam’, which has featured in every headline and breaking news. The connotations of scam in the Indian mind conjure up visions of Harshad Mehta (4000 crores); Bofors (64 crores); Fodder (950 crores); Satyam (8000 crores); Fake Stamp (171 crores) et al. The list is endless. So how does the so-called Sukhna scam compare with these? Money defrauded-nil; land ownership – not of military; land given away – nil; innuendos – thousands! I rest my case.
Much has been made of General Prakash being ‘special’ and close to the Chief. The truth is that he is one of the seven PSO’s (Principle Staff Officers), chosen for their seniority. In a hierarchical structure like that of the army, no Chief can make a junior General a PSO. The Chief selects the senior most and gives them appointments that in his wisdom they are best suited for. There are no personal agendas but the media, possibly at the behest of their ‘sources’ in the ministry, has repeatedly used the phrase ‘favourite General’. Were all previous Military Secretary’s favourites of Chiefs? Please ask the ex- Chiefs – you will be much wiser!
Let me now dwell on the procedure for investigating an offence in the army, which is elaborate and eminently fair, as the accused gets every chance for his defence. When a purported offence is brought to the notice of a commander and he judges that there is need for an investigation, he orders a court of inquiry (C of I) to find out whether an offence has indeed been committed and who all may be involved. On finalisation, the commander records his recommendations and forwards them to the next superior commander. The recommendations do not record what or how disciplinary action should be taken, as that is the prerogative of the next superior officer. This was correctly done by GOC-in-C Eastern Command, but the media was misinformed (another leak!) that he had recommended that the officer in question be brought before a court martial. This misinformation spiraled and made the case a ‘cause celebre’ unnecessarily.
On receipt by the Chief, the C of I proceedings are sent to the Judge Advocate General, for legal advice. Based on this, the Chief records his orders, wherein he specifies whether the accused is (are) to be dealt with administratively or tried by a court martial. While recording his directions, the Chief weighs how best the ends of justice will be met, what kind of message will go to the environment and the impact it will have on discipline. Dealing administratively is a simpler process unlike a court martial, but it is not exoneration by any stretch of imagination, as the accused faces even dismissal and penal deductions. Thereafter, show cause notices are issued and the Chief, taking formal cognizance, orders a Summary of Evidence. However, in this case, the government interfered mid way, perhaps for emotional or electoral reasons, thus subverting the process.
One does not like to point fingers at a senior minister, but I am constrained to do so as the venerable R M, issued an advisory to the Chief, when he had no legal authority to do so. It was a constitutionally incorrect decision and is a clear case of subverting the army’s well tested judicial system. That it was leaked to the media reflects the callous attitude of the government to the military and an attempt to interfere with ‘due process’, which is the hallmark of justice and jurisprudence. This is obviously demoralising for the military and deserves the severest condemnation.
I see this case as one where the ministry is playing their favourite game of divide and rule, where they seem to have surpassed even the British, who were the original architects of this policy. A change of Chiefs is due in two months and here is the ministry undermining both the present incumbent as well as his successor. This will then be used against the next Chief to ‘keep him in his place’. This is not the first time the ministry has done this; it seems to have become a habit with it. Besides the institutional damage, it is clearly a case of disloyalty to the nation. The nation must not sit quiet but question the motives of these individuals who are bent on disparaging the Chiefs of our military, all honourable men, in this churlish manner.
The writer is a former Vice Chief of Army Staff.
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi (Retd)
Monday, February 1, 2010
Will not tolerate corruption in armed forces: Antony
The government on Sunday said the army has already taken strong action in the Sukhna land scam case, insisting that it will not tolerate even a single instance of corruption in the armed forces.
"Already, army has taken strong action. I do not want to say anything further... We cannot tolerate even a single instance of corruption," Defence Minister A K Antony said.
Replying to a question on the reasons for advising court martial proceedings against Lt Gen Awadesh Prakash, who has been indicted in the Sukhna land scam, Antony said what happened in Sukhna and in some other cases are "aberrations".
"Look at the society as a whole, various walks of life. Compared to many other institutions, armed forces has a much better system of correcting things and punishing the guilty," he said.
Antony said, "You should compare what is going on around. Compared to many other institutions, armed forces and army are doing much better to take action and correct aberrations in the system".
The Defence Minister asked to look at the positive aspect of the armed forces and its traditions, saying the sacrifices made by jawans and the officers must also be looked at.
"Our jawans and officers are sacrificing their life, their blood, their health to protect every inch of our territory, to safeguard border security. We must salute them and protect their honour," he said. (SS-31/01)
Will not tolerate corruption in armed forces: Antony
"Already, army has taken strong action. I do not want to say anything further... We cannot tolerate even a single instance of corruption," Defence Minister A K Antony said.
Replying to a question on the reasons for advising court martial proceedings against Lt Gen Awadesh Prakash, who has been indicted in the Sukhna land scam, Antony said what happened in Sukhna and in some other cases are "aberrations".
"Look at the society as a whole, various walks of life. Compared to many other institutions, armed forces has a much better system of correcting things and punishing the guilty," he said.
Antony said, "You should compare what is going on around. Compared to many other institutions, armed forces and army are doing much better to take action and correct aberrations in the system".
The Defence Minister asked to look at the positive aspect of the armed forces and its traditions, saying the sacrifices made by jawans and the officers must also be looked at.
"Our jawans and officers are sacrificing their life, their blood, their health to protect every inch of our territory, to safeguard border security. We must salute them and protect their honour," he said. (SS-31/01)
Will not tolerate corruption in armed forces: Antony
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sukhna Land Scam takes a new dimension
New Delhi: Defence Minister AK Anthony on Wednesday recommended court martial of Lt. Gen. Awadesh Prakash for his alleged involvement in a land scam in Sukhna cantonment in West Bengal.
Antony made the recommendation after Army chief General Deepak Kapoor ordered administrative action against Prakash while another officer held guilty in the scam, Lt. Gen. P K Rath, was ordered to be court martialled.
"The Defence Minister has recommended for disciplinary action against Prakash also and this includes court martial," said a senior defence official on Wednesday.
The Defence Minister's recommendations reached the army chief on Wednesday.
Kapoor had submitted his action-taken report in the scam to the defence ministry early this month.
Prakash, the current military secretary, was found guilty by a court of inquiry of using his position to influence granting of a no-objection certificate by Rath -- who was commander of 33 Corps in Sukhna -- to a private realtor.
The Eastern Army Commander, Lt.Gen. V K Singh, who convened the inquiry, had recommended court martial of the two officers.
Meanwhile, Prakash was asked to proceed on leave. Prakash is to retire on January 31.
An Army court had indicted the two officers for their role in issuing of a no-objection certificate to a private establishment that falsely claimed to be setting up an affiliate of the well-known Ajmer-based Mayo College on a plot adjacent to the Sukhna military station in Darjeeling district.
Prakash is one of the eight Principal Staff Officers (PSOs) at the Army Headquarters and acts as adviser to the army chief.
As military secretary, Prakash was responsible for the promotions and postings of army officers.
Rath was the deputy army chief-designate but his appointment was cancelled after the scam was exposed.
Sukhna Land Scam: Court Martial Senior Officer
Daily Mail Report
Fort Williams boss wins the War of Generals in Indian Army
Land Scam: Army Chief Gen Kapoor caught at crossroads
Friday, September 18, 2009
Evolution of Military Law and necessity of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Chandigarh based noted lawyer Navdeep Singh places a perspective on the recently constituted Armed Forces Tribunal and traces the evolution of the practice of military law for the armed forces personnel.It would not exactly be appropriate to say that the three military Acts are without enough checks to avoid miscarriage of justice. There are ample provisions parallel to those available under the criminal system of jurisprudence but the problem remains that unlike the criminal courts, court martials are presided over not by judicial officers but by officers of the regular army who neither have the acumen nor the bent towards legal and judicial modalities. Moreover, all procedures finally leading to conviction by a court martial (such as Courts of Inquiry, Summary of Evidence etc) are handled by military personnel who may just follow provisions of military Acts and Rules in formal letter but not in spirit - and this makes all the difference. And this also brings us to the answer why a body of professionals such as the AFT is so very urgently required to sit in judgement and appeal over justice rendered to men and women in uniform by another set of men and women in uniform.
Read full article:
Armed Forces Tribunal
Monday, June 22, 2009
Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal appointed
Monday, June 22, 2009 Ministry of Defence
The Government has approved the appointment of following as Judicial and Administrative Members in the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench and Various Regional Benches), in scale of pay Rs. 26,000/- (fixed) (pre revised), for a period of 4 years from the date of assumption of the post or till the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
Judicial Members
1. Mr. Justice Janardan Sahai
2. Mr. Justice K Padmanabhan Nair (Retd)
3. Mr. Justice Shilendra Shanker Kulshrestha (Retd)
4. Mr. Justice Ghanshyam Prasad (Retd)
5. Mr. Justice Manak Lall Mohta
6. Mr. Justice AC Arumugaperumal Adityan
7. Mr. Justice Anwar Ahmad (Retd)
8. Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan
Administrative Members
1. Lt. Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman
2. Lt. Gen (Retd) Amrik Singh Bahia
3. Lt. Gen (Retd) Madan Gopal
4. Lt. Gen (Retd) Susheel Gupta
5. Lt. Gen (Retd) M L Naidu
6. Lt. Gen (Retd) HS Panag
7. Lt. Gen ( Retd) Thomas Mathew
8. Lt. Gen ( Retd) PR Gangadharan
9. Lt. Gen ( Retd) SS Dhillon
10. Lt. Gen (Retd) ZU Shah
11. Lt. Gen (Retd) RK Chhabra
12. Lt. Gen (Retd) NS Brar
13. Vice Adm (Retd) RF Contractor
14. Lt. Gen (Retd) BS Sisodia
15. Commodore (Retd) Mohan Phadke
The Union Cabinet gave its approval for the creation of 31 posts for the Armed Forces Tribunal on June 24, 2008 paving the way for the creation of the proposed independent adjudicating forum for dispensing cost effective and speedy justice to the armed forces personnel. The posts include 1 of Chairperson and 29 posts of members for the Principal Bench at New Delhi and 8 Regional Branches. It also includes one post of Principal Registrar at the Principal Bench.
The Principal Bench at New Delhi will have three courts and will have jurisdiction over High Courts in the State of Delhi. Similarly, the Chandigarh and Lucknow Benches will have 3 courts each. The Chandigarh Bench will have jurisdiction over Punjab, Haryana, J&K and Himachal Pradesh. The Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh. The other locations for the Benches with one court each will be Kolkata, Guwahati, Mumbai, Kochi, Chennai and Jaipur. The Kolkata Bench will have jurisdiction over West Bengal, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The Guwahati Bench will have jurisdiction over Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The Mumbai Bench will have jurisdiction over Maharashtra, Goa and Gujarat. While Kochi Bench will have jurisdiction over Kerala and Karnataka, Chennai Bench will look after Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The Jaipur Bench will have jurisdiction over Rajasthan.
The setting up of the Armed Forces Tribunal has fulfilled a long-felt need of the country’s three defence services. Over 9,800 cases filed by Service personnel are pending before various High Courts. The maximum number of cases numbering 2487 will be transferred to the Chandigarh Bench while 2407 will be adjudicated by the Lucknow Bench. Two thousand three hundred and six (2,306) cases are proposed to be transferred to the Delhi Principal Bench.
The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 which was passed by the Parliament during the Winter Session of 2007 received the assent of the President on 25th December, 2007. The Act was notified on 28th December, 2007. It provides for adjudication or trial by the tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to Three Services Acts as also for appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of court martial held under the said Acts and for matters connected with them. The Act came into force with effect from 15th June, 2008. The Tribunal will have original jurisdiction in service matters and appellate jurisdiction in court martial matters. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur was appointed as the Chairman of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will consist of 1 Chairperson, 14 judicial and 15 administrative members. The administrative members shall be officer of the rank of Major General or above in the Army or equivalent rank in the Navy or the Air Force with three years of service in that rank. JAG of three Services with at least one year of service as JAG shall also be eligible. The judicial member should be serving or retired judge of the High Court. All appointments to the Tribunal are made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Tribunal has powers to punish for its contempt.
****
Samir / RAJ
Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal appointed
Comment: JAG branch needs to be streamlined and its officers impove their professional skills to ensure the system is just and free from influence and corruption.
The Government has approved the appointment of following as Judicial and Administrative Members in the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench and Various Regional Benches), in scale of pay Rs. 26,000/- (fixed) (pre revised), for a period of 4 years from the date of assumption of the post or till the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
Judicial Members
1. Mr. Justice Janardan Sahai
2. Mr. Justice K Padmanabhan Nair (Retd)
3. Mr. Justice Shilendra Shanker Kulshrestha (Retd)
4. Mr. Justice Ghanshyam Prasad (Retd)
5. Mr. Justice Manak Lall Mohta
6. Mr. Justice AC Arumugaperumal Adityan
7. Mr. Justice Anwar Ahmad (Retd)
8. Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan
Administrative Members
1. Lt. Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman
2. Lt. Gen (Retd) Amrik Singh Bahia
3. Lt. Gen (Retd) Madan Gopal
4. Lt. Gen (Retd) Susheel Gupta
5. Lt. Gen (Retd) M L Naidu
6. Lt. Gen (Retd) HS Panag
7. Lt. Gen ( Retd) Thomas Mathew
8. Lt. Gen ( Retd) PR Gangadharan
9. Lt. Gen ( Retd) SS Dhillon
10. Lt. Gen (Retd) ZU Shah
11. Lt. Gen (Retd) RK Chhabra
12. Lt. Gen (Retd) NS Brar
13. Vice Adm (Retd) RF Contractor
14. Lt. Gen (Retd) BS Sisodia
15. Commodore (Retd) Mohan Phadke
The Union Cabinet gave its approval for the creation of 31 posts for the Armed Forces Tribunal on June 24, 2008 paving the way for the creation of the proposed independent adjudicating forum for dispensing cost effective and speedy justice to the armed forces personnel. The posts include 1 of Chairperson and 29 posts of members for the Principal Bench at New Delhi and 8 Regional Branches. It also includes one post of Principal Registrar at the Principal Bench.
The Principal Bench at New Delhi will have three courts and will have jurisdiction over High Courts in the State of Delhi. Similarly, the Chandigarh and Lucknow Benches will have 3 courts each. The Chandigarh Bench will have jurisdiction over Punjab, Haryana, J&K and Himachal Pradesh. The Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh. The other locations for the Benches with one court each will be Kolkata, Guwahati, Mumbai, Kochi, Chennai and Jaipur. The Kolkata Bench will have jurisdiction over West Bengal, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The Guwahati Bench will have jurisdiction over Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The Mumbai Bench will have jurisdiction over Maharashtra, Goa and Gujarat. While Kochi Bench will have jurisdiction over Kerala and Karnataka, Chennai Bench will look after Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The Jaipur Bench will have jurisdiction over Rajasthan.
The setting up of the Armed Forces Tribunal has fulfilled a long-felt need of the country’s three defence services. Over 9,800 cases filed by Service personnel are pending before various High Courts. The maximum number of cases numbering 2487 will be transferred to the Chandigarh Bench while 2407 will be adjudicated by the Lucknow Bench. Two thousand three hundred and six (2,306) cases are proposed to be transferred to the Delhi Principal Bench.
The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 which was passed by the Parliament during the Winter Session of 2007 received the assent of the President on 25th December, 2007. The Act was notified on 28th December, 2007. It provides for adjudication or trial by the tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to Three Services Acts as also for appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of court martial held under the said Acts and for matters connected with them. The Act came into force with effect from 15th June, 2008. The Tribunal will have original jurisdiction in service matters and appellate jurisdiction in court martial matters. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur was appointed as the Chairman of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will consist of 1 Chairperson, 14 judicial and 15 administrative members. The administrative members shall be officer of the rank of Major General or above in the Army or equivalent rank in the Navy or the Air Force with three years of service in that rank. JAG of three Services with at least one year of service as JAG shall also be eligible. The judicial member should be serving or retired judge of the High Court. All appointments to the Tribunal are made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Tribunal has powers to punish for its contempt.
****
Samir / RAJ
Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal appointed
Comment: JAG branch needs to be streamlined and its officers impove their professional skills to ensure the system is just and free from influence and corruption.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Pending Court Cases in India
The total pendency of cases, both civil and criminal in the 21 High Courts as on December 31, 2007 is 37,43,060. The pendency in Madras High Court is 4,28,832, including 3,92,824 civil cases and 36,008 criminal cases. Increasing the strength of judges to 60 is expected to considerably increase the rate of disposal and reduce the pendency in the Madras High court. Additional judges’ term extended by two years
Indian judicial & crime statistics
Huge case backlog clogs India's courts
2.59 crore cases pending in courts across the country
41 court martial cases pending
Comment: The population of India on July 2008 stands at 1160 million and nearly 30 million of its citizens (approx 3%) are fighting legal battles. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Can citizens ever dream of speedy deliverance. The Armed Forces Tribunal recently has come into vogue. Can the Defence Forces expect speedy Justice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
