The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to overturn a court-martial's dismissal of an Army officer due to the improper appointment of a junior Judge Advocate. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards and the need for a valid convening order.

In Union Of India & Ors. Vs Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, the Supreme Court upheld the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision to overturn a court-martial's dismissal of Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, finding that the appointment of a Judge Advocate junior in rank to Lt. Col. Arora without proper justification in the convening order was a procedural defect that invalidated the court-martial proceedings. The Court, relying on Union of India & Anr. vs. Charanjit Singh Gill, determined that while a Judge Advocate does not act as a judge, their role is crucial to guide the Court, and the appointment of a junior officer as Judge Advocate is permissible only when an officer of equal or higher rank is unavailable, which must be explicitly documented in the convening order. The Court found that the respondent's version of the convening order, which lacked this justification, was authentic, making the omission an incurable defect that was not remedied by the later addition of reasons in the appellant's version, as the initial omission undermined the procedural fairness of the trial.

Backgroud:
Lt. Col. Rahul Arora was charged with three offenses under the Army Act while serving as an ENT Specialist at a Military Hospital in Secunderabad. These charges stemmed from allegations that he accepted money to alter a recruit's medical classification from “unfit” to “review after 15 days.” A General Court Martial (GCM) found him guilty of two of the three charges and consequently dismissed him from service.

Lt. Col. Arora appealed the GCM's decision to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which upheld the findings and sentence. He then filed a writ petition with the Punjab & Haryana High Court, challenging the AFT's order. The High Court allowed the writ petition solely on the grounds that a Judge Advocate junior in rank to Lt. Col. Arora had presided over the GCM, contradicting the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Charanjit Singh Gill.

Appointment of Judge Advocate:
The Supreme Court in Charanjit Singh Gill established that appointing a Judge Advocate junior to the accused officer is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Specifically, this deviation is allowed when an officer of equal or higher rank is unavailable, and this reason for unavailability must be explicitly documented in the convening order.

Procedural Irregularity:
The Court examined two different convening orders presented before the High Court—one by the appellant and the other by the respondent. While the appellant's version contained reasons for appointing a junior officer as Judge Advocate, the respondent's version, which the High Court deemed authentic, lacked such justification. This omission, according to the Court, constituted a fatal flaw in the court-martial proceedings.

Irremediable Defect:
The Court, relying on its previous ruling in Charanjit Singh Gill, concluded that the failure to provide reasons for appointing a junior Judge Advocate in the convening order is an incurable defect. This defect is not remedied by the later addition of such reasons, as the initial omission undermines the procedural fairness of the trial.

Significance of Judge Advocate's Role:
The Court emphasized the crucial role a Judge Advocate plays in a court-martial, even though they do not function as a judge. Their duty is to guide the Court, which may not be composed of legal experts, on matters of law, procedure, and any irregularities in the charges or proceedings. The Court underscored that the accused officer deserves to be assisted by a Judge Advocate who commands respect and does not diminish the dignity of the proceedings.

While concluding the Apex Court held that "The legal position is thus well settled in Charanjit Singh Gill (supra) that non recording of reasons of appointment of an officer junior in rank as a Judge Advocate in the convening order invalidates the Court Martial proceedings. The High Court has not committed any error of law in holding so in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale.
Between:Union Of India & Ors. Vs Lt. Col. Rahul Arora
DOJ: 09-09-2024