SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 14

P.K.GOSWAMI, R.S.SARKARIA, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
M. L. Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Army Act with specific reference to certain provisions, particularly Section 123, and according to him, Article 33 does not cover ex-servicemen who are not serving members of the defence forces. Mr. Mahajan, appearing for the petitioner, argues that his client falls in this category and therefore cannot be tried by court martials. As the case proceeded, counsel chose to pray for permission to withdraw the three cases. We permit him to withdraw them.

2. Independently of the petitioner withdrawing the proceedings instituted by him in this Court, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, states, at the suggestion of the Court, that his client may not have any objection to making two ameliorative gestures: firstly, acting within the ambit of Regulation 392 (k) of the Defence Services Regulations the concerned military authority may be inclined to direct that the petitioner be not kept in custody or close arrest, subject to reasonable conditions which he may choose to impose (the violation of which will certainly invite custody being taken of the person of the petitioner). He will



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top