Can't fire navyman for affair, link to foreigner: SC

[Ray]

Can't fire navyman for affair, link to foreigner: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday injected liberalism into the strict moral and ethical boundaries defined for officers in the armed forces and said a consenting relationship between an officer and the wife of another officer could not be a ground for dismissal from service.

In many cases, officers in Army, Navy and IAF have been discharged from service on the ground of "stealing the affection of a brother officer's wife", a charge that is quickly fastened depending on the equation enjoyed by the delinquent officer with his superiors.

A naval commander in Mumbai was discharged from service after a Board of Inquiry concluded that he had "indulged in promiscuous and extra-marital relationship and maintained unauthorized contact with foreign nationals". The final charges did not hold him guilty of "moral turpitude" and "breach of information security".

The commander successfully challenged his discharge before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which directed naval authorities to reinstate him with minor penalties. The Centre challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the Centre, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said the Navy was a disciplined force and it was not becoming of a senior officer to indulge in such misdemeanour with a fellow officer's wife. He also said unauthorized contact with a foreign woman, who was the wife of an Indian, created grave apprehension in the minds of authorities about possible compromise in national security.

A bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices S J Mukhopadhaya and Arun Mishra read through the evidence produced by the authorities before the AFT and said there were two charges against the man - one, indulging in exchange of sexually explicit text messages and photographs with the wife of another officer, and, two, socializing with a foreigner who was the wife of an Indian.

The CJI said, "The exchange of sexually explicit texts and photographs was between two consenting adults. The woman's husband has not complained about the fellow officer stealing his wife's affection. The woman has not complained. No one has complained. How do you term it a serious offence? The authorities have stealthily collected details of all the texts and photographs. If he was compromising national security, surely they would have found out.

"Second charge is his meeting with foreign national. But your allegations stop there. She is a foreign national married to an Indian. He might have met the lady for breakfast, lunch or dinner, but did he pass any sensitive information to her. If you have no information on this, how do you have an apprehension that it could compromise national security. In our society, the moment a foreigner marries an Indian, she becomes part of our society even though she has white skin. Can it be said that no uniformed man should meet a lady with white skin?"

The naval commander's counsel Vibha Datta Makhija said if that was the case, then all officers on naval ships that dock in a foreign port should also face the same charge.

The apex court agreed with the AFT's finding that "none of the two acts on the part of the naval commander merit his removal from service" and dismissed the appeal filed by the government.

Can’t fire navyman for affair, link to foreigner: SC - The Times of India

This is another of the ruling where the mind apparently does not appear to have been exercised because the wise men are unaware of the ethos that govern service behaviour to make it a bit more responsible to the service and to the organisation.

Service personnel, be they officers or PBOR, unlike the civil society are deployed for long stretches operationally and are away from their families. The families are in peace stations which also have units doing their peace tenure. People including separated families meet in Clubs, OR Clubs, the market place, entertainment places and so on.

The fact that there are such strict Army, Navy and Air Force laws leading to court martial and dismissal including cashiered wherein one cannot have illicit sex, consensual or otherwise, ensures that the men folk in operational areas can have mental satisfaction that their families will be well looked after without having to worry about any violation of, or turbulence in marital life, caused by molestation, rape or illicit sex.

Now, if the SC feels that illicit sex with consent is not any grounds for dismissal or cashiering, then can the menfolk in operational areas be sure that all will be well at home? And will that constant worry not affect operational duty. Of course, one could say that one should have faith in his wife etc. True. But in today's world where morality is influenced by global promiscuity, to believe it will not affect all, is living in an ideal world and a fool's paradise.

Further, having contact with foreigners and that too with females can lead to honey traps and compromising national security. Thus, it is not encouraged in the Defence Forces.

If a foreigner marries an Indian, does it mean that foreigner has been washed in the Ganges and cannot be a spy?

The morality of the Defence Forces are on the wane and the SC ruling will sink it to an abysmal depth wherein they will not be able to recover and it will be to the detriment of National Security and Operational Efficiency.

That is why, while the Judges are wise old owls, sometimes they get everything a bit wonky and opening avenues to disaster.

In UK, if one recalls the famous 'Profumo and Chirstine Keeler case'. It was about the Defence Minister Profumo having sex with a call girl Keeler. Keeler was also having sex with the Soviet Defence Attache.

Even though Profumo had no direct contact with the Soviet Defence Attache, the Defence Minister had to resign and the Govt of the day was in the dock!

Note the difference.

 

[Bheeshma]

The SC is dead wrong. The military is not a democracy let alone a liberal one. Armed forces should not be under the purview of the civilian justice system.