SC upholds Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to substitute General Court Martial’s finding

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is empowered under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to substitute the findings of a General Court Martial (GCM) if the findings are excessive, illegal or unjust, the Supreme Court has ruled.

“Thus, under Section 15(6) (a) & (b) of the 2007 Act, the Tribunal (AFT) is empowered to substitute the finding of (General) Court Martial which includes the disciplinary proceedings under the Act and also to interfere with the sentence if the same is found to be excessive, illegal or unjust and to mitigate the punishment awarded,” A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe said.

The Bench upheld the AFT’s decision to set aside a GCM’s order to dismiss SK Jain—a Commandant of the Northern Command Vehicle Depot, Udhampur—for corruption, illegal possession of ammunition, and unexplained cash holdings and substitute it with compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits.

A GCM held the appellant Commandant guilty on these charges and sentenced him to dismissal from service in 2009.

The AFT acquitted him of corruption in 2012 on the ground that the evidence of bribery was insufficient. It also set aside his conviction under the Arms Act.

However, invoking its statutory powers, the AFT convicted him under Section 63 of the Army Act, saying his conduct amounted to “an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline’ and reduced his punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits.

The top court rejected Jain’s appeal against the AFT’s order, holding that the AFT’s decision to substitute the GCM’s view was proportionate and did not warrant any interference.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Aradhe said, “The Tribunal has exercised its discretion under Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual. The Tribunal has acted strictly within the statutory framework. The aforesaid exercise of discretion, therefore, does not call for any interference in this appeal. The Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the petition for review filed by the appellant.”

Noting that Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act empowered the AFT to substitute the finding of GCM and awarding a sentence afresh, the top court said, “In the instant case, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 15(6) of 2007 Act, on the established fact of recovery of ammunition from the possession of the appellant, has taken a lenient view in favour of the appellant and has modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits.”