The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment affirming the authority of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to modify court-martial convictions and impose lesser penalties in cases where the original sentence is found to be excessive, illegal, or unjust. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe, upheld the AFT’s decision to set aside a General Court Martial (GCM) order of dismissal and replace it with compulsory retirement, thereby allowing the appellant to retain pensionary benefits and other entitlements.
The matter arose from a case in which the appellant, serving as the Commandant of a vehicle depot in 2008, faced allegations of corruption, illegal possession of ammunition, and unexplained cash holdings. The GCM, after investigation and trial, found the officer guilty of corruption and possession of ammunition under the Army Act and sentenced him to dismissal from service in 2009. The appellant challenged this decision before the AFT, which examined the evidence and proceedings in detail.
In 2012, the AFT concluded that the appellant was not guilty of corruption, as the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish bribery. While acquitting him of the corruption charges, the Tribunal retained the conviction under the Arms Act but recharacterized the offense under Section 63 of the Army Act, holding that the appellant’s actions amounted to conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Exercising its statutory powers, the AFT reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement. This adjustment allowed the officer to receive pensionary benefits and other post-retirement entitlements, reflecting a balance between enforcing discipline within the armed forces and ensuring fairness to the individual officer.
The appellant subsequently challenged the AFT’s decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting the court-martial conviction and modifying the punishment. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed this challenge, emphasizing that the AFT is empowered under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to modify convictions and impose lesser penalties. The Court drew a parallel with Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, noting that the Tribunal’s powers under the Act are in pari materia with Section 162 of the Army Act, which allows courts to convict for a lesser or cognate offense based on the same set of facts.
The Court further observed that the AFT’s discretion to modify sentences is not arbitrary but guided by considerations of proportionality, justice, and the need to maintain military discipline. The Tribunal’s decision to replace dismissal with compulsory retirement was proportionate to the nature of the offense, as it acknowledged the misconduct while mitigating the consequences where evidence for more severe charges was insufficient.
By upholding the AFT’s order, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that the Tribunal functions as a quasi-judicial body capable of ensuring fairness in military justice proceedings. This judgment clarifies that the AFT can review, adjust, or substitute court-martial findings and sentences within its statutory mandate, thereby balancing the interests of discipline in the armed forces with the rights and entitlements of service members. It affirms the AFT’s role in safeguarding fairness while maintaining the integrity and operational requirements of the military justice system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.