Courts Can't Interfere In Court-Martial Merely On Compassionate Grounds If Proceedings Not Irregular: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that courts cannot interfere with court-martial proceedings merely on grounds of compassion or if the punishment appears excessive, provided the proceedings are conducted in strict conformity with law.A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar set aside an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order that had modified the dismissal of an army personnel to discharge, restoring the original penalty for overstaying leave by 139 days.The bench, in its judgment observed that judicial review over court-martial findings is "extremely limited", and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases where the punishment is "shockingly disproportionate or perverse".Background: The case pertained to Ex-Rifleman Abdul Rashid War, who was enrolled in the Indian Army in 1983 and served with the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry Regiment. In 1998, he was granted 30 days' leave, later extended, but overstayed by 139 days before rejoining in January 1999. He was tried under Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings and dismissed from service.Challenging the dismissal before the AFT in 2021, War claimed the overstay was due to an accident, severe mental stress from a failed marriage proposal leading to depression, and medical treatment until December 1998. He also cited fear of his Commanding Officer as a reason for delay in rejoining. Arguing that the dismissal was disproportionate given his over 15 years of satisfactory service, he sought modification to discharge to restore pensionary benefits.The AFT partly allowed the plea converting the punishment to discharge with consequential benefits restricted to three years preceding the filing of the OA. The Union of India challenged this via writ petition contending that the SCM was lawful, the overstay reflected grave indiscipline, and War was a habitual offender with prior punishments for similar lapses.Dismissing the AFT's order, Justice Sanjay Parihar, for the bench, noted that War had earlier been awarded 28 days' imprisonment and 14 days' detention in May 1997 under Sections 63 and 39(b) of the Army Act for acts prejudicial to good order and overstaying leave. He was also deprived of promotion to Lance Naik in January 1998 under Section 63.The court clarified that while Section 39 penalizes overstaying leave with up to three years' imprisonment, it is distinct from the graver offence of desertion under Section 38. However, it relied on precedents like Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India and Union of India v. Ex. Sep/Ash Kulbeer Singh (2019) 13 SCC 20, upholding dismissals for repeated overstays, emphasizing that "discipline is the hallmark of the Armed Forces".Contrasting this with cases cited by War, such as Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India (1991) and S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union of India, where dismissals were modified for long service, the bench invoked the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Major A. Hussain (1998) 1 SCC 537. It held that where proceedings are regular and findings evidence-based, interference is limited.Elaborating on proportionality, the court referred to Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, stating judicial intervention is permissible only if the punishment "shocks the conscience of the Court". The bench also referenced Union of India v. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592, where it was cautioned that courts "should not interfere merely because the punishment appears excessive. Compassion alone cannot justify interference".In the instant case, the bench found no procedural irregularity in the SCM and noted War's failure to produce substantive evidence for his claims before it. Even assuming the circumstances, his four-month unauthorized absence could not be condoned, the court maintained. It remarked, "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."The AFT, the court held, erred in modifying the punishment without cogent reasoning on disproportionality. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the AFT order quashed, and the SCM's dismissal upheld. Case Title: Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Rfn Abdul Rashid WarCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Courts Can't Interfere In Court-Martial Merely On Compassionate Grounds If Proceedings Not Irregular: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags