Armed Forces Tribunal Cannot Dilute Court Martial Punishment Without Adequate Justification: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

The High Court was hearing a petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had modified the punishment of dismissal imposed upon a rifleman who had overstayed sanctioned leave for more than four months.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while stating that the Tribunal erred in converting the punishment of dismissal into discharge, emphasised: “As a member of the Armed Forces, the respondent was expected to maintain the highest standard of discipline, which is the cornerstone of military service. Absence without leave, even for a single day, undermines discipline and operational efficiency. The respondent’s unauthorised absence for more than four months cannot be condoned on sympathetic considerations. Unless the punishment is outrageously disproportionate or actuated by mala fides, judicial interference is unwarranted.”

Rohan Nanda, CGSC, appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Danish Butt represented the respondent.

Background

The respondent, serving in the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry Regiment, was on sanctioned leave, which was later extended. He failed to rejoin his unit after the expiry of extended leave and remained absent, resulting in an unauthorised absence of 139 days.

Proceedings under Section 39 of the Army Act were initiated, and a Summary Court Martial was convened. After examining the evidence, the Summary Court Martial imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.

More than two decades later, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal challenging the punishment, claiming he had been suffering from personal and medical difficulties during the period of absence. The Tribunal modified the punishment to discharge.

Aggrieved by the modification, the Union of India approached the High Court, contending that the Tribunal’s interference was contrary to settled principles governing judicial review in matters of court martial proceedings.

Court’s Observation

The J&K and Ladakh High Court, upon examining the record, noted that the respondent had been previously punished for offences involving overstay of leave and acts prejudicial to discipline. The Bench observed that the record showed multiple instances of indiscipline and that such conduct could not be ignored while assessing the appropriateness of the punishment imposed by the Summary Court Martial.

The Court held that discipline is fundamental to the functioning of the Armed Forces and that unauthorised absence, particularly for an extended period, compromises the efficiency and operational readiness of the unit.

The Bench, while referring to Union of India v. R.K. Sharma (2001), reiterated that judicial review of court-martial sentences is limited and that interference is permissible only when the punishment is outrageous or suffers from mala fides, further stating that “compassion alone cannot justify interference”.

The Court also highlighted that the Tribunal in modifying the punishment, "has not recorded any cogent reasoning to demonstrate why the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate”, while stressing that "interference with findings or sentence is justified only in exceptional cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or perverse".

Conclusion

Consequently, the Court concluded that the Armed Forces Tribunal had therefore “erred in reversing the order of the Summary Court Martial and in converting the punishment of dismissal into discharge without adequate justification”.

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was allowed, and the dismissal of the respondent from service, as ordered by the Summary Court Martial, was restored. All pending applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: Union of India & Others v. Abdul Rashid War

Appearances

Petitioners: Rohan Nanda, CGSC

Respondent: Advocate Danish Butt

Click here to read/download Judgment