India
Lawyer cannot be lower in rank than accused in general court martial: SC | India News – Times of India
The Supreme Court has reinstated a lieutenant colonel, an ENT specialist in the Army Medical Corps (AMC), blaming the summoning of a general court martial against the officer primarily because the army had appointed a judge advocate to provide legal advice to the GCMwho was of a lower rank than the officer against whom the charges were filed, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
In September 2002, it was alleged that Lt. Col. Rahul, while examining new recruits at the Military Hospital in Secunderabad, Arora had accepted a bribe to change the remark ‘unfit’ to ‘after 15 days assessment’ for one of the recruits. Lt Col Arora was charged and a general court martial found him guilty and ordered his discharge from service. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the discharge.
However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the decision of the general court martial, which had criticized the appointment of the advocate-judge, who was of the rank of major, which was junior to the officer against whom the proceedings were initiated. The high court had said that it was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its 2000 decision in Charanjit Singh Gill case, which had blocked the appointment of a judge advocate under the officer facing GCM. The Union government had appealed against the HC verdict in the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices Prashant K Mishra and PB Bharale said that the Supreme Court was not only right in declaring that the convening of the GCM was illegal, but it was also wrong on the part of the army authorities to modify the letter appointing the judge advocate after it was issued to Lieutenant Colonel Arora.
In September 2002, it was alleged that Lt. Col. Rahul, while examining new recruits at the Military Hospital in Secunderabad, Arora had accepted a bribe to change the remark ‘unfit’ to ‘after 15 days assessment’ for one of the recruits. Lt Col Arora was charged and a general court martial found him guilty and ordered his discharge from service. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the discharge.
However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the decision of the general court martial, which had criticized the appointment of the advocate-judge, who was of the rank of major, which was junior to the officer against whom the proceedings were initiated. The high court had said that it was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its 2000 decision in Charanjit Singh Gill case, which had blocked the appointment of a judge advocate under the officer facing GCM. The Union government had appealed against the HC verdict in the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices Prashant K Mishra and PB Bharale said that the Supreme Court was not only right in declaring that the convening of the GCM was illegal, but it was also wrong on the part of the army authorities to modify the letter appointing the judge advocate after it was issued to Lieutenant Colonel Arora.
