UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus DINESH KUMAR

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 16-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 830 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
DINESH KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 1208 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 16, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Border Security Force Act, 1968 - s. 117(2) - Border 
C Security Force Rules, 1969 - rr. 99 and 149(1) - Recording 
of reasons in support of order passed by Summary Security 
Force Court and appellate authority - Requirement of - Held: 
SSFC ulr. 149 or appellate authority u/s. 117(2) are not 
required to give reasons.Jn support of its decision - r. 99 was 
D amended requiring the authority of General Security Force 
Court or Petty Security Force Court to give reasons in support 
of their findings. - No such amendment was made to r. 149 
which is appli9able in case of Summary Security Force Court 
- Provisions· for SSFC and appellate authority are pari 
E materia - On facts, High Court erred in setting aside the 
orders of authorities that the finding of guilt recorded by SSFC 
and appellate authority was bad as no reasons were given by 
the authorities - Thus, matters remitted back to High Court 
for reconsideration on merits. 
F 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appeals was whether the Summary Security Force Court, 
and the appellate authority uls. 117 (2) of the Border 
Security Force Act, 1968 are required to give reasons in 
support of its decision. This Court had remitted the 
G matters to High Court. 
H 
Now giving reasons for remitting the matters, the 
Court 
830 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 
831 
HELD: 1.1 Chapter XI of the Border Security Force 
A 
Rules, 1969 deals with the proceedings before Summary 
Security Force Court (SSFC). Chapter IX deals with the 
procedure for Security Force Courts. Rule 99, which is 
included in Chapter IX, deals with Record and 
announcement of finding. Under the amended Rule 99(1), 
B 
it became necessary for the SSFC to give brief reasons 
in support of the findings, where the procedure of SSFC 
was being followed. Rule 99 will not apply to SSFC. The 
procedure for SSFC is provided in Chapter XI (Rules 133 
to Rule 161). Though Rule 99 was amended requiring c 
authority of General Security Force Court or Petty 
Security Force Court to give reasons in support of their 
findings, no such amendment was made to Rule 149 
which is applicable in case of SSFC. Since Rule 149 was 
left intact in contradistinction to Rule 99, the authorities 
0 
of SSFC were not required to give reasons in support of 
their findings in all these cases and the High Court 
gravely erred in setting aside the orders of authorities on 
that count alone. [Paras 8 and 9] [840-C-F] 
1.2. Section 117 of the Bord~r Security Force Act, 
E 
1968 provides for remedy against order, finding or 
sentence of Security Force Court, which could include the 
SSFC also. The provisions for the SSFC and the appellate 
authority are pari materia, more particularly in case of r. 
149 ands: 117(2) of the Act, with the provisions which 
F 
were considered in both the above authorities. Therefore, 
there cannot be ~ny escape from the conclusion that the 
reasons would not be required to be given by the SSFC 
under r. 149 or by the appellate authority under Section 
117(2) of the Act. This position is all the more obtained 
G 
in case of SSFC, particularly, as the Legislature chose 
not to amend Rule 149, though it specifically amended 
Rule 99 w.e.f. 9.7.2003. [Para 12] [843-B-F] 
S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 594, 
followed. 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Som Datt Datta Vs. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 414; 
Nirmal Lakra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2003 DLT (102) 415, 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
B 
AIR 1969 SC 414 
1990 (4) sec 594 
2003 DLT (102) 415 
Referred to. 
Followed. 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
Para 12 
Paras 12, 13 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
D 
1208 of 2010 
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.200~ of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 6856. of 2000. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1209, 1210, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1217, 1219, 
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 
1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1237, 1238,' 1239, 1240, 1241, 
E 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 
1253, 1255, 1556, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 
1265, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1274, 1275, 1277, 1279, 
1280, 1281, 1282 of 2010 
F 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Ms. Rekha Pandey.Ms. Sunita 
Sharma, S.N.Terdol, Ruhitas Nagar (for Su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.