UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHIVENDRA BIKARAM SINGH

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 24-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
SHJVENDRA BIKARAM SINGH 
APRIL 24, 2003. 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Military Laws: 
Navy Act, 1957-Sections 97, JOI, 102, 162 and 163-Court Martial 
proceedings-Conviction-Objection as to competency of members of Court C 
Martial proceedings to act as impartial judge-Trial Judge Advocate 
disposing of the objection himself without referring to the members of Court 
Martial-Justification of-Held: Court Martial proceedings vitiated for not 
referring the objections since in terms of mandatory provision of Section 102, 
trial Judge Advocate should not have disposed of the objection himself- D 
Since accused did not challenge the ruling of trial Judge Advocate after an 
intermediate stage of proceedings it cannot be said that he waived his right 
to raise the objection-Court Martial proceedings being nullity, evidence 
recorded before it having no sanctity in law, the finding recorded by High 
Court that there was no legal evidence to support charges levelled against 
the accused and he was entitled to benefit of doubt set aside-Whether or E 
not to continue the .Court Martial proceedings from the stage of Section 102, 
is left to the authorities concerned 
Respondent-naval officer was tried by Court Martial for offences under 
IPC and Navy Act and was found guilty. He was sentenced to rigorous F 
imprisonment for 24 months and dismissal from service with consequential 
penalties. The Chief of Naval Staff under Section 163 of the Act reduced the 
sentence to 12 months and upheld the rest of the sentence. He also rejected 
the respondent's petition under Section 162 of the Act. Respondent then filed 
writ petition challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by Court 
Martial and the orders ofChiefofNaval Staff. It was challenged on the ground G 
that the members of the Court Martial had not been appointed in conformity 
with Section 97 of the Act; that two of the Members of the Court Martial were 
incompetent to act as impartial Judges; and that the objection raised was 
disposed of by the Trial Judge Advocate without reference to the members of 
the Court Martial in violation of Section 102 of the Act. High Court relied on 
~I 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A the decision of this Court in *Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, that participation 
of the objected members in court martial rendered the proceedings coram non 
judice, and allowed the writ petition. 
Appellant-Union of India contended that the trial Judge Advocate has 
power to reject summarily an objection raised by the accused against inclusion 
B of any member in the Court Martial even if it related to his competency to act 
as an impartial Judge, if it did not have any merit; that only those objections, 
which raised grounds worth considering had to be referred to the Court Martial 
for its decision; that the High Court erred in relying on the principles laid 
down in Ranjit Thakur's case as that case was under the Army Act which is 
C different from Section 102 of the Navy Act; that there was sufficient evidence 
on record to support the conviction; that the High Court was not justified in 
law in appreciating the evidence on record and concluding that the respondent 
was entitled to benefit of doubt; that the respondent having submitted himself 
to trial and the defect if any, not being of such a nature as to vitiate the trial, 
the respondent had waived his objection against membership of two of the 
D officers in the Court Martial, thus, cannot urge that ground in support of the 
writ petition. 
Respondent contended that the trial Judge Advocate erred in rejecting 
the objection raised by the ·respondent since under Section 102 any objection 
E relating to a member of the Court Martial on his competency to act as an 
impartial Judge bad to be decided by the members of the Court Martial; that 
the function of the trial Judge Advocate is only to advise the Court Martial 
and not to decide such issues; that though the trial Judge Advocate performs 
functions judicial in nature, his role becomes relevant only after the trial 
commences after disposal of objections under Section 102 and in the instant 
F case that stage was never reached; that the respondent never waived his right 
to object to the membership of three of the.officers in the Court Martial; that 
the respondent was not expected to challenge every ruling given by the trial 
Judge Advocate; that the verdict of the Court M

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.