http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 9

PETITIONER:

RANJIT THAKUR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1987

BENCH:

VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

BENCH:

VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:

1987 AIR 2386 1988 SCR (1) 512

1987 SCC (4) 611 JT 1987 (4) 93

1987 SCALE (2)773

CITATOR INFO :

R 1988 SC1099 (6)

D 1991 SC1617 (10,26,33,34)

R 1992 SC 188 (5)

R 1992 SC 417 (5)

ACT:

Army Act, 1950/Army Rules, 1954: Sections 41 and

130/Rules 106-133-Court Martial-When proceedings vitiated-

Participation of officer who has punished accused-Whether

amounts to bias-Soldier-Refusing to eat food-Whether amounts

to disobedience of lawful command.

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32, 136 and 226-

Judicial Review-Irrationality and perversity-Extentof.

Administrative Law: Natural Justice-Fair Trial-Judgment

only after due observance of Judicial Process-Quantum of

punishment disproportionate to offence Whether conclusive

evidence of bias.

Interpretation of Statutes: Procedural safeguards-

Statutory Provisions-How to be construed.

HEADNOTE:

%

The appellant, a Signal Man in a Signal Regiment of the

Armed Services, while serving out a sentence of 28 days’

rigorous imprisonment imposed on him by the Commanding

officer of the Regiment respondent No. 4, for violating

norms for presenting representations to higher officers, was

alleged to have committed another offence by refusing to eat

his food on March 29, 1985 when ordered to do so. He was

charged under section 41(2) of the Army Act, 1950 for

disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer. A

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was imposed

by a Summary Court Martial consisting of respondent No. 4

and others. He was removed to the civil prison and he served

out the sentence.

The appellant’s representation to the confirming

authority under section 164 of the Act was rejected by the

General officer Commanding on May 24,1985.

The appellant’s writ petition challenging proceedings

of the Summary Court-Martial was dismissed in limine by the

High Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 9

513

In the appeal by special leave, it was contended on

behalf of the appellant that the proceedings of the Court-

Martial were vitiated (i) by a non-affording of an

opportunity to challenge the constitution of the Summary

Court-Martial under section 130(1); (ii) by bias on the part

of the respondent No. 4 who participated in and dominated

the proceedings; (iii) by awarding a punishment so

disproportionate to the offence as to amount in itself to

conclusive evidence of bias and vindictiveness; and (iv) by

ignoring that as the appellant was then serving-out an

earlier sentence he could not be need to be in active-

service so as to be amenable to disciplinary jurisdiction

and that the appellant’s refusal, while already serving a

sentence, to accept food did not amount to disobedience

under section 41, of any lawful command of a Superior

officer.

Allowing the appeal,

^

HELD: 1.1 The Indian Army Act, 1950 constitutes a

special law in force conferring a special jurisdiction on.

the Court-Martial prescribing a special procedure for the

trial of the offences under the Act. The Act and Rules

constitute a self-contained Code specifying offences and the

procedure for detention, custody and trial of the offenders

by the Court-Martial. [518G-H; 519A]

1.2 The procedural safeguards contemplated in the Act

must be considered in the context of and corresponding to

the plenitude of the Summary jurisdiction of the Court-

Martial and the severity of the consequences that visit the

person subject to that jurisdiction. The procedural

safeguards sh