India’s court-martial system fails on all counts: competence, independence, impartiality

Discussion in 'Indian Army' started by Shadow, Jul 3, 2015.

  1. Shadow

    Shadow Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    India
    The recent debate over the process of appointing High Court and Supreme Court judges has raised several important questions about judicial independence. Unfortunately, the Indian military justice system has escaped similar scrutiny. Worse, any prospects of reform seem dim at present.

    For a court to be able to hold a fair trial, it must have at least three attributes – competence: judges must possess appropriate legal training and qualifications; independence: judges’ appointments, promotions and security of tenure should not be open to the executive's influence; impartiality: judges should be and appear to be free of personal and institutional bias.

    On all these counts, the Indian military justice system is deficient. It discounts legal training and qualifications, lacks independence from the military chain of command, and ignores conflicts of interest. The military justice system, as set out in the Army Act, the Air Force Act and the Navy Act, is based largely on the British Indian Army Act of 1911. The court-martial procedure is broadly similar across these laws, with some key differences in the Navy Act. Paramilitary forces have their own specific laws based on the Army Act.

    The flawed processes

    A court-martial is a temporary body assembled by a "convening authority" – a senior military officer – after looking into the charges against an accused soldier. The convening officer also appoints the members of the court-martial, the prosecutor and the defence counsel, who are all officers drawn from the military.

    Some court-martials are also attended by a "judge advocate" who is trained in law and provides legal advice to the court, prosecution and defence, but does not act either as a judge or as an advocate for any side.

    Military courts can try military offences such as failure to obey orders and also civilian crimes. When a military court reaches a finding and awards a sentence, it must be "confirmed" by another senior officer (who is usually the convening officer). The confirming officer, if dissatisfied, can order the court to revise the findings or sentence. They can also mitigate, remit or commute the sentence.

    Riddled with structural defects

    So how is this system flawed?

    Competence: Members of a court-martial typically don’t have any legal training or qualifications. Officers appointed to the armed forces for their military ability are in effect required to perform all the functions of a judge (a job that in civilian courts requires a law degree and years of experience). Soldiers are expected, with the advice of a judge advocate, to assess evidence, determine guilt, and award sentences.

    Independence: The members of a court-martial, the judge advocate, the prosecutor and the defending officer are all subordinates in rank to the convening officer. The members of the court-martial are also under the convening officer’s chain of command. Several former soldiers have criticised this lack of independence. Wing Commander (Retd) U C Jha wrote that the convening officer “exercises command and control over his functionaries in all areas of their service career, including assessment in the annual appraisal reports, future promotions, leave, training courses, posting and appointment”.

    Impartiality: The convening officer, who decides whether a case should be tried by a court-martial, has to first determine if the evidence supports the charges. When the same person is then given the authority to appoint a court-martial’s members and "confirm" findings and sentences, the right to a fair trial is, and appears to be, threatened. The risk that court members will be susceptible to command influence increases - an issue the Supreme Court has highlighted. The conflict of interest is exacerbated in cases of alleged human rights violations, where concerns about the army’s reputation and troop morale come into play.

    While individual soldiers can of course be honest and fair-minded, the structural defects of the military justice system make military courts less able to conduct fair trials and deliver justice.

    Reforms elsewhere

    The United Kingdom, whose model India followed, has reformed its military justice system extensively following concerns around the role of the convening officer. In 1997, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that that a court-martial in the UK did not constitute a “fair hearing” by an “independent and impartial tribunal” because all the officers appointed were serving under the command of the convening officer. The European Court also ruled that the officers’ lack of legal qualification or experience “made it impossible for them to act in an independent or impartial manner”.

    The self-policing approach of the military justice system makes it particularly unsuitable for prosecuting alleged human rights violations. These cases can in theory be prosecuted by civilian courts, but security forces often block attempts to do so. They invoke laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to require prior permission from the central government (which is virtually never given). Or they claim that the concerned soldier was on "active service", which means that the case can then be tried in a military court.

    The army says it has found nearly 95% of allegations of human rights violations by army personnel to be false or baseless. But few details of these investigations are available to the public. The army says it has punished several soldiers, but these claims are again virtually impossible to verify, as the army refuses to disclose more information. The results of court-martial proceedings are almost never revealed even to victims and their families, in effect ruling out legal challenges. Cases like the Machil fake encounter, for which a court-martial convicted five army personnel in Jammu and Kashmir last year, have been rare exceptions. An upcoming report by Amnesty International India on impunity in Jammu and Kashmir looks at these issues in more detail.

    Open to civilian courts

    Internationally, there is growing acceptance that civilian courts, and not military courts, must prosecute soldiers for alleged human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances. International human rights standards state that military court jurisdiction should be limited to strictly military offences committed by military personnel, such as desertion or insubordination.

    Other countries have shown that reforms are possible. In the last two decades, the UK, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand have extensively reformed their military justice systems, limiting the role of commanding officers, strengthening the independence of judges, establishing external accountability mechanisms, and limiting the jurisdiction of military courts. There’s still room for improvement. But these changes have improved fairness and due process without any evident harm to military discipline or effectiveness.

    Georges Clemenceau, the prime minister of France during the First World War, once said that military justice is to justice what military music is to music. India’s military justice system is truly out of sync with the times. It needs an urgent tune-up.

    The writer is Senior Policy Advisor, Amnesty International India.





    http://scroll.in/article/737413/ind...l-counts-competence-independence-impartiality







     
  2.  
  3. Hari Sud

    Hari Sud Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    843
    Location:
    Ontario
    Nothing but BS.

    Stay as far away as possible from military justice system.
     
  4. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Yes, the subject needs specialisation and knowledge of the subject and bad mouthing the generals, lampooning army, genrics, going around the bush etc would not do...:nono:

    This is an interesting topic and should attract contributions !!

    And lastly, if the Marshall Law is declared as per the Constitution ( Art 34) then one can not remain away from it !!:lawl:
     
  5. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Yes, the subject needs specialisation and knowledge of the subject and bad mouthing the generals, lampooning army, generics, going around the bush etc would not do...:nono:

    This is an interesting topic and should attract contributions !!

    And lastly, if the Marshall Law is declared as per the Constitution ( Art 34) then one can not remain away from it !!:lawl:
     
  6. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    The author Ray is advisor to Amnesty International. The sole purpose of the article is to impress that soldiers should be tried by Civil Courts for Human right Violation in India in stead by the Courts constituted under the Army act.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Army, Air Force, Navy or other specific acts and Rules are subject to The Constitution of India and do not supercede that. Proceeding under these acts are also subject to review and appeal by Armed Forces Tribunal, the High Courts and the Supreme Courts of India.

    Administration of Justice is undertaken under these acts in accordance of laws of justice and though the Chain of command, the supreme being the Government of India in the chain.

    Armed Forces are not the sole exception to this. Every Central / State Govt Deptt or agency follow their own set of disciplinary rules such as CCS Rules, CCS Conduct Rules and other rules which administer justice in matters of discipline and misconduct in accordance with those rules before the matter can be taken to the Courts.

    Administration of Justice in the Armed Forces differs in terms of powers of Courts and degree of punishments and trails for military offences due to peculiar condition of operational needs and peculiar requirements of discipline in the Armed Forces.

    In the beginning itself, the author is trying to impress as if Military Justice system is out side the jurisdiction of higher / appellate courts such as The Armed Forces Tribunal, The CAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Military justice is part of the overall judicial System and not independent of it.
     
    anupamsurey likes this.
  7. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    The author elaborates on the aspect of Competence, Judges and Independence / impartiality subsequently and I shall comment on that suject separately.:blah:

    So far as Militray justice system being deficient - I feel all justice systems in the world over are deficient in one way or the other. Do not we see incompetent lawyers, touts masquerading as lawyers, agents, middlemen, judges being appointed based on reservation rather than competency, allegations of corruption, justice being bought, bailis to the corrupt and rich, racial biases in American courts etc etc.

    When justice is administered under CCS Rules or conduct rules, same thing may apply there. Why single out administration of justice in Armed Forces?:megusta:

    Indian Army Act being based on a British Act of 1911 is also not a disqualification. The author should know that 90 percent of Indian Laws are based on British laws passed after 1857in India. The most famous Indian Penal Code is based on British India act of 1862 and continues to remain so with amendments ?? Army act similarly has undergone requisite amendments.:pound:
     
  8. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Temporary body of what - officers, my dear senior advisor and not journalists like you or NGO workers or political activists and spies of Amnesty International. The famous jury system as part of English Judicial system and US administration of justice system is also temporary bodies of rather a body of legal luminaries.

    And who is Convening authority. The Convening authority is a senior authority than the commanding officer under whose command the offence has been purportedly committed except in the case of Summary Court Martial (SCM)wherein the offence is lesser in significance deserving lesser punishment and where the requirements of the organisation warrant summary trail and disposal of the case.

    All Natural Justice procedures of law are followed before committing the case to convening authority for convening a Court Martial:

    * The incident / act / avoidance / negligence is reported.

    * A Court of inquiry is convened ( what you call as preliminary investigation under CrPC).

    * Based on the findings of the Court of Inquiry, the Commanding Officer makes up his mind whether there is a prima facie case against the accused or not and a tentative charge sheet is prepared.

    * Then there is hearing of the Charge in the presence of the accused with full liberty to the accused to cross examine the witnesses. Requisite time is given to the accused to frame his defence time being based on the consideration of active service or otherwise.

    * If the commanding officer in convinced that a prima facie case exists, then a Summary of evidence is ordered to be recorded to collect and record legal evidences as per Evidence Act.

    * The commanding officer at this stage may decide to dispose of the charge, there being no case and acquit the accused. Case is closed.

    * Based on the finding and recommendations of the Summary of Evidence, the commanding officer decides on the charge sheets. and commits the case to higher authorities for Convening court martial or ask permission to dispose the case by SCM in certain cases where powers of SCM will meet the ends of the justice.

    In the civil side all members who administer justice are either the police or judicial service filled with money earning / professional legal experst who are part of a system and not independent as the author is trying to imply. They are also appointed ( such as public prosecutors, legal counsels et), they have chain of command, they have their CRs and promotions or continuation of services etc. If these attributes are negative for the Army, how can the same attributes be positive for the so called civil side.
     

Share This Page