JASWANT SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1312 · Decided: 10-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
JASWANT SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6886 of 2014)
DECEMBER 10, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Army Rules, 1954 – r.129 – Benefit of legal advise under –
Entitlement to – Appellant, Sepoy in the Indian Army was dismissed
from service by Summary Court Martial – Challenged before Armed
Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Dismissed – Plea of appellant that he was
entitled to the benefit of legal advise u/r.129 of the 1954 Rules which
he was denied on the ground that legal assistance could be
admissible only where the offence was punishable with death – Held:
Rule 129 indicates that in Summary Court Martial, the accused may
have a person to assist him during the trial, whether a legal adviser
or any other person – Expression ‘may’ must be read to mean that
the person who is proceeded against has the option on whether or
not to engage a legal advisor or any other person – It represents an
entitlement to be represented – In view of the specific provisions of
r.129, the Commanding Officer was evidently in error in declining
the assistance of a lawyer to the appellant – There was a clear
violation of the principles of natural justice – Prejudice too is evident
– Appellant was dismissed from service and sentenced to six months’
imprisonment – Both his livelihood and liberty were taken away –
Judgment of AFT set aside – Armed Forces – Service Law – Army
Regulations – Regulation 479 – Doctrines/Principles – Principles
of Natural Justice .
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Rule 129, Army Rules, 1954 clearly indicates
that in a Summary Court Martial, the accused may have a person
to assist him during the trial whether legal adviser or any other
person. The expression ‘may’ must be read to mean that the
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1312
1312
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1313
person who is proceeded against has the option on whether or
not to engage a legal advisor or any other person. It represents
an entitlement to be represented.  [Para 7][1315-A-B]
1.2  Regulation 479 of the Army Regulations deals with a
situation where a person who is subject to the Army Act is to be
tried for a court martial for an offence punishable with death.  On
the contrary, Army Rule 129 specifically deals with representation
in a Summary Court Martial. In view of the specific provisions of
Rule 129, the commanding officer was evidently in error in
declining the assistance of a lawyer on the ground that legal
assistance could be admissible only where the offence was
punishable with death. [Paras 10, 11][1315-D-E]
1.3 In the present case, the appellant had rendered seven
years service.  He was pitted against his commanding officer. In
the face of the Army Rule 129, there was no reason to deny him
the benefit of legal representation which he desired at his own
expense. For these reasons, there was a clear violation of the
principles of natural justice. The prejudice too is evident.
The appellant was dismissed from service and sentenced to six
months’ imprisonment.  Both his livelihood and liberty were
taken away. The judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal is set
aside. [Paras 15-17][1317-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6886
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2012 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in OA No. 48 of 2010/order
dated 05.03.2013 in MA No. 62 of 2013
Major K. Ramesh, Ms. Archana Ramesh, Vibhuti S. Gupta,
Surgavir, Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.,
R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Shailendra Saini, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Kirti Dua, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the
Respondents.
JASWANT SINGH  v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. The appellant has challenged the decision of the Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow dated 18 December, 2012 in O.A.
No. 48/2010, by which his challenge to the punishment of dismissal and
six months’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Summary Court Martial
has been rejected. The punishment of imprisonment has already been
undergone.
2. The appellant was enrolled as a Sepoy on 1 January, 2003 in
the Indian Army. A Summary Court Martial was convened on two
charges; the first being of an assault on a superior officer while the
second was the use of abusive language against a Subedar who had
f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.