A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John delivered the judgment in appeals arising from a single bench judgment.

In the writ petition before the Single Judge, Karwade, a Navy personnel with 31 years of service, had challenged the court-martial proceedings, contending, among other things, that the officer who investigated the allegations against him had subsequently acted as the Prosecutor. He argued that allowing the same officer to perform both roles was contrary to criminal jurisprudence and deprived him of a free and fair trial under Article 21.

He also challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 178(3) of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965, which provides that the Prosecutor is a competent witness.

The Single Judge disposed of the petition observing that the petitioner is not entitled to a declaration that Regulation 178 (3) of the Navy Regulations is ultra vires the Constitution. However, it was also held that the word 'suitable person' found in Regulation 163(1) of the Navy Regulations cannot be interpreted to include the Investigating Officer and allow the Investigation Officer to act as Prosecutor in the very same trial.

It was also observed that the right to fair trial would be infringed when the same Investigation Officer himself assumes the role of the Prosecutor in a trial before the court.

The present appeal was filed by the writ petitioner against the rejection of the prayer to declare the Regulation 178 (3) of the Navy Regulation as ultra vires to the Constitution. The Union of India had also filed an appeal against the observation by the Single Judge which stated that appointing the Investigating Officer as a prosecutor and treating him as a witness in the same trial infringed the right to a fair trial.

The Division Bench therefore considered whether Regulation 178(3) of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965 was ultra vires Article 21, and whether Regulation 163(1) prohibited the appointment of an Investigating Officer as the Prosecutor in the same court-martial.

The Union of India argued that court-martial proceedings under the Navy Act operate under a special statutory and regulatory framework. It relied on Sections 4 to contend that fundamental rights apply to persons in the Navy subject to the Naval Law with modifications.

It was further contended that CrPC is not applicable to the Navy Act as it has separate procedural law and regulations under the Navy Act and regulations which provides for the manner of conducting the trial before the court-martial.

The Bench accepted this statutory framework. It noted that the Navy Act and the Navy Regulations constitute a separate procedural regime governing investigation, court-martial proceedings, evidence and trial. In view of Sections 4 and 5 of the CrPC and the specific provisions governing court-martial proceedings, the Court held that the CrPC does not govern the trial where the Navy Act and Regulations prescribe their own procedure.

The court noted that Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to determine the extent to which fundamental rights may be restricted or abrogated in their application to members of the Armed Forces, among others, in order to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline.

The Bench held that the fundamental rights under Part III are subject to the restrictions constitutionally contemplated by Article 33. It consequently rejected the argument that the special procedure prescribed for naval court-martial proceedings necessarily amounted to a violation of Article 21.

The Court then examined Regulations 163(1) and 178(3) of the Naval regulations. Regulation 163(1) provides that the convening authority shall appoint a “suitable person” to prosecute a case before the court-martial and regulation 178(3) recognises the Prosecutor as a competent witness.

The Bench found that the Regulations contain no express prohibition against an Investigating Officer being appointed as Prosecutor. On a conjoint reading of the two provisions, the Court reasoned that the provision making the Prosecutor a competent witness necessarily contemplated circumstances in which the Prosecutor could possess knowledge of the facts of the case.

The Court therefore concluded that there was no regulatory bar against appointing the Investigating Officer as Prosecutor.

“On a thorough reading of the Regulations, there is no prohibition on an Investigating Officer from being appointed as a Prosecutor. The Investigating Officer may be a suitable person for conducting the prosecution case before the court-martial, who knows the facts of the case and who finally files the charge sheet against the Armed personnel. Therefore, Regulation 178(3) of the Navy Regulations cannot be said to be ultra vires to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but it is valid in view of the restrictions under Article 33 of the Constitution of India.” Court held.

The Division Bench further disagreed with the single Judge's observation that an Investigating Officer, having already formed an opinion during investigation, could not be regarded as a suitable Prosecutor and that the Prosecutor should function as an independent officer of the court.

The Court held that the Prosecutor's role is to place the evidence before the court-martial. The decision on guilt and the sentence remains with the court-martial and not the Prosecutor. Therefore, the Court held, the Prosecutor need not be an independent authority in the sense contemplated by the single Judge; the requirement under Regulation 163(1) is that the person appointed must be suitable to prosecute the case.

“The sole duty of the prosecutor is to place the evidence before the court-martial. The judgment or order of sentence is to be delivered by the court-martial itself, and not by the prosecutor. The prosecutor's role is confined to effectively presenting the accused before the court and placing the evidence on record. Therefore, the prosecutor need not be an independent authority but must be a suitable person for prosecuting the case before the court-martial. Hence, the observation made by the single Judge cannot be accepted.” the Court said.

The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petitioner's appeal and allowed the Union of India's appeal, setting aside the single Judge's observations concerning the appointment of an Investigating Officer as Prosecutor in the court-martial proceedings.

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v Santosh Karwade and Anr. and connected case

Case No: W.A. 2980/ 2025 and connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 520

Counsel for Appellant: P. Sreekumar (ASGI), Suvin R. Menon (CGC)

Counsel for Respondent: Yeshwant Shenoy, Aysha Abrham