JUDGMENT

(Dated: 17th September, 2026)

[WA Nos.2980/2025, 218/2026]

K.Natarajan, J

1. These intra-court appeals – Writ Appeal No.218 of 2026 is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, and Writ Appeal No.2980 of 2025 is filed by the Union of India, for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) No.1002 of 2024 dated 22.08.2025.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.2980 of 2025, Sri. P.Sreekumar, ASGI, for the Union of India and Sri.Yaswanth Shenoy, learned counsel for the respondents. The ranks of the parties before the single Judge are retained for convenience.

3. The writ petitioner, Santhosh Karwade, who was a Navy personnel with 31 years of service, is stated to be undergoing a trial held against him by the court martial under the Navy Act, 1957 (for short, ‘Navy Act’). By filing the writ petition, he mainly challenges the trial before the court-martial, which was in progress. According to the petitioner, the proceedings before the court-martial were conducted illegally and improperly, in breach of law, as he was denied his right the free and fair trial, which was guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The main contention was that the court-martial had been convened under the Navy Act for various charges framed against him. Among these, certain charges alleged that he had dishonestly induced an officer, named Balachandran to transfer a sum of 1,10,595/-, and several similar allegations were also made against him, a₹nd he was charged with offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act. When the trial commenced, eight witnesses were examined. At that time, he came to know that the trial was being conducted before the court-martial by the Prosecutor, who is none other than the Investigating Officer of the charges levelled against him, and he was denied access to material documents and was denied adequate opportunities to defend the case. He has raised certain irregularities in the investigation as well as charges framed against him; especially, he has challenged the constitutionality of Regulation No.178(3) of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Navy Regulations). Accordingly, he filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the Investigation Officer had been vitiated as the final outcome of the investigation was predetermined, a declaration that the charges were framed in violation of Regulation 155 of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965 and a declaration that the convening order to assemble the GCM was in violation of Regulation 156.

5. The main challenge, in brief, was that the investigating officer himself was appointed as a prosecutor under Regulation 163(1) of the Navy Regulations and, in turn, he conducted the trial before the court-martial. Although 178(3) of the Navy Regulations says that the Prosecutor may be a competent witness, it is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence, and he cannot act in two roles as both Prosecutor and Investigating Officer. Therefore, Regulation 178(3) is to be declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India under Article 21.

6. After hearing both sides, the learned single Judge elaborately dealt with the matter and disposed of the writ petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to a declaration that Regulation 178(3) of the Navy Regulations is ultra vires the Constitution. However, the learned single Judge held that the word ‘suitable person’ found in Regulation 163(1) of the Navy Regulations cannot be interpreted to include the Investigating Officer and allow the Investigation Officer to act as Prosecutor in the very same trial. The right to a fair trial would be infringed when the same Investigation Officer himself assumes the role of the Prosecutor in a trial befo