Latest news with #ArmyAct
Express Tribune
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Military court convicts entitled to 'file petitions'
In a landmark judgment, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) has ruled that individuals convicted by military courts had the constitutional right to file writ petitions before the High Court. The decision came as a significant blow to the federal government's stance, which had argued that such petitions were inadmissible due to the availability of alternative forums for appeal. A two-member bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad and Justice Sadiq Ali Memon issued the detailed verdict while hearing a petition filed by Adnan and others from Mardan, who had been convicted by military courts in connection with the May 9 incidents following the arrest of Imran Khan. The petitioners have contended that they had not been involved in the unrest that had taken place at the Mardan City police station and had been wrongfully implicated. They have pointed out that while their co-accused had been tried in anti-terrorism courts, they had been handed over to military courts without being provided an explanation or legal documentation. During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney General objected to the admissibility of the petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternative appellate forum which they had failed to approach within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, he claimed, the petition was time-barred and not maintainable. In response, the petitioners' counsel, Barrister Amirullah Chamkani, maintained that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had in a recent short order suggested that the federal government amend the Pakistan Army Act to formally recognize High Courts as appellate forums for military court convictions. However, the counsel pointed out, the government had failed to implement these amendments, thereby depriving the petitioners of an appellate remedy. Chamkani further argued that his clients were unaware of the charges against them, had not been provided any trial documents, and had only been informed after the lapse of the appeal period. He, therefore, contended that it was unjust to declare their petition inadmissible. The PHC, in its written order, observed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 could not be denied, especially in situations where no effective remedy was available to the aggrieved parties. The court ruled that the absence of any appellate forum and the lack of transparency in the trial process justified the maintainability of the writ petition. Referring to the precedent set in the Brigadier Ali case, the court noted that even the Supreme Court, while upholding military trials under the Army Act, had accepted that High Courts could exercise jurisdiction in such matters.
Time of India
09-06-2025
- Time of India
Two Army officers surrender before Vasco court in 4-year-old boy's death
Panaji: Two Indian Army officers, accused of ignoring the construction defects in the Naval Officers Residential Area, Dabolim, finally appeared before the criminal court in Vasco on Monday after several summonses went unserved. The two army officers—one recently retired and settled in Goa—were named as co-accused in the death of a four-and-a-half-year-old boy who fell to his death from the sixth floor in April 2017. Both the accused were released on personal bonds of Rs 20,000 each, said Veerendra Mohan, special counsel for prosecution. 'Justice, though delayed, is not being denied as the two army officers have finally surrendered. They were the project manager and deputy project manager and, as such, were responsible for the execution of the projects without defect,' said Mohan. 'Defects such as not fixing the grill of a window resulted in the unfortunate death of the only son of a naval medico couple.' The naval medico couple approached the high court of Bombay at Goa, seeking that the criminal proceedings be expedited. The HC, in writ petition 318 of 2018, directed that 'proceedings should be conducted with utmost dispatch and expedition'. The special counsel said that though Goa police completed investigations and chargesheeted all the accused persons for the construction defects, the ministry of defence earlier declined prosecution sanction and instead proceeded under the Army Act, 1950. However, though the two army officers faced a general court martial trial in Panaji, the army could not try the two officers after they submitted pleas that the time limit statute under the Army Act was exceeded.
The Hindu
02-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Armed forces united by uniform not divided by religion: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of services of a Christian Army officer over his consistent refusal to fully participate in the weekly regimental religious parades and said the armed forces were united by their uniform rather than being divided by their religion. A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur rejected the petition by the Indian Army Lieutenant, who served as a 'Troop Leader' of a squadron, against the termination order passed on March 3, 2021, that dismissed him from the Indian Army without pension and gratuity. The court opined that the petitioner kept his religion above the lawful command from his superior, and disobedience was an offence under the Army Act. "In the present case, the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his superiors have been calling upon him to attend the religious parades by even entering the sanctum sanctorum and perform the rituals if this would help in boosting the morale of the troops. In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline," said the bench. "Our Armed Forces comprise personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions, and, therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste, or region," it stated. The petitioner submitted that his regiment maintained only a temple and a gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and being of monotheistic Christian faith, he sought exemption from entering the innermost part of the temple while accompanying his troops for the weekly religious parades and other events. The authorities defended the termination, saying efforts were made through other Christian officers in the army, and he was also taken to the pastor of a local church, who told the petitioner that entering the 'sarv dharm sthal' as part of his duties would not impinge on his Christian faith. However, he remained undeterred. In its judgement passed on May 30, the court "saluted" the dedication of "those who guard our borders day and night in adverse conditions" and said uniformity in appearance as well as respect for all the religions was quintessential to a cohesive, disciplined, and coordinated functioning of an armed force and the ethos of the armed forces placed nation before religion. It further said that although regiments might historically bear names associated with religion or region, it did not undermine the secular ethos of the institution, and religious war cries only serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops. The court observed that in the present case, the Chief of Army Staff concluded that the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of the essential military ethos, and it could not "second-guess" the decision unless it was manifestly arbitrary. "While there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner has the right to practice his religious beliefs, however, at the same time, being the Commanding Officer of his troops, he carries additional responsibilities as he has to not only lead them in war but also has to foster bonds, motivate personnel, and cultivate a sense of belonging in the troops," the court observed. It therefore held that the petitioner's refusal to fully participate in the weekly regimental religious parades, despite counselling at multiple levels of command and multiple opportunities being given to him for compliance, demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to the requirements of military service and the armed forces. It said the termination of the petitioner was justified, and since the religious sentiments and the morale of the troops were in question, a formal court martial was "unsuitable for resolution" as it could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the armed forces. "While to a civilian, this may appear a bit harsh and may even sound far-fetched, however, the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different. The motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards," the court observed. "We find no grounds to interfere with the Impugned Order dated 03.03.2021. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed," it held.
Time of India
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Armed forces united by uniform not divided by religion: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of services of a Christian army officer over his consistent refusal to fully participate in the weekly regimental religious parades and said the armed forces were united by their uniform rather than being divided by their religion. A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur rejected the petition by the Indian Army Lieutenant, who served as a 'Troop Leader' of a squadron, against the termination order passed on March 3, 2021, that dismissed him from the Indian Army without pension and gratuity. The court opined that the petitioner kept his religion above the lawful command from his superior, and disobedience was an offence under the Army Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like IIT Delhi AI Programme IITD TAILP Apply Now Undo "In the present case, the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his superiors have been calling upon him to attend the religious parades by even entering the sanctum sanctorum and perform the rituals if this would help in boosting the morale of the troops. In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline," said the bench. "Our Armed Forces comprise personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions, and, therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste, or region," it stated. Live Events The petitioner submitted that his regiment maintained only a temple and a gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and being of monotheistic Christian faith, he sought exemption from entering the innermost part of the temple while accompanying his troops for the weekly religious parades and other events. The authorities defended the termination, saying efforts were made through other Christian officers in the army, and he was also taken to the pastor of a local church, who told the petitioner that entering the 'sarv dharm sthal' as part of his duties would not impinge on his Christian faith. However, he remained undeterred. In its judgement passed on May 30, the court "saluted" the dedication of "those who guard our borders day and night in adverse conditions" and said uniformity in appearance as well as respect for all the religions was quintessential to a cohesive, disciplined, and coordinated functioning of an armed force and the ethos of the armed forces placed nation before religion. It further said that although regiments might historically bear names associated with religion or region, it did not undermine the secular ethos of the institution, and religious war cries only serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops. The court observed that in the present case, the Chief of Army Staff concluded that the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of the essential military ethos, and it could not "second-guess" the decision unless it was manifestly arbitrary. "While there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner has the right to practice his religious beliefs, however, at the same time, being the Commanding Officer of his troops, he carries additional responsibilities as he has to not only lead them in war but also has to foster bonds, motivate personnel, and cultivate a sense of belonging in the troops," the court observed. It therefore held that the petitioner's refusal to fully participate in the weekly regimental religious parades, despite counselling at multiple levels of command and multiple opportunities being given to him for compliance, demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to the requirements of military service and the armed forces. It said the termination of the petitioner was justified, and since the religious sentiments and the morale of the troops were in question, a formal court martial was "unsuitable for resolution" as it could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the armed forces. "While to a civilian, this may appear a bit harsh and may even sound far-fetched, however, the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different. The motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards," the court observed. "We find no grounds to interfere with the Impugned Order dated 03.03.2021. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed," it held.
Hindustan Times
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Armed forces united by uniform not divided by religion: Delhi HC
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of services of a Christian army officer over his consistent refusal to fully participate in the weekly regimental religious parades and said the armed forces were united by their uniform rather than being divided by their religion. A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur rejected the petition by the Indian Army Lieutenant, who served as a 'Troop Leader' of a squadron, against the termination order passed on March 3, 2021, that dismissed him from the Indian Army without pension and gratuity. The court opined that the petitioner kept his religion above the lawful command from his superior, and disobedience was an offence under the Army Act. "In the present case, the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his superiors have been calling upon him to attend the religious parades by even entering the sanctum sanctorum and perform the rituals if this would help in boosting the morale of the troops. In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline," said the bench. "Our Armed Forces comprise personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions, and, therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste, or region," it stated. The petitioner submitted that his regiment maintained only a temple and a gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and being of monotheistic Christian faith, he sought exemption from entering the innermost part of the temple while accompanying his troops for the weekly religious parades and other events. The authorities defended the termination, saying efforts were made through other Christian officers in the army, and he was also taken to the pastor of a local church, who told the petitioner that entering the 'sarv dharm sthal' as part of his duties would not impinge on his Christian faith. However, he remained undeterred. In its judgement passed on May 30, the court "saluted" the dedication of "those who guard our borders day and night in adverse conditions" and said uniformity in appearance as well as respect for all the religions was quintessential to a cohesive, disciplined, and coordinated functioning of an armed force and the ethos of the armed forces placed nation before religion. It further said that although regiments might historically bear names associated with religion or region, it did not undermine the secular ethos of the institution, and religious war cries only serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops. The court observed that in the present case, the Chief of Army Staff concluded that the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of the essential military ethos, and it could not "second-guess" the decision unless it was manifestly arbitrary. "While there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner has the right to practice his religious beliefs, however, at the same time, being the Commanding Officer of his troops, he carries additional responsibilities as he has to not only lead them in war but also has to foster bonds, motivate personnel, and cultivate a sense of belonging in the troops," the court observed. It therefore held that the petitioner's refusal to fully participate in the weekly regimental religious parades, despite counselling at multiple levels of command and multiple opportunities being given to him for compliance, demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to the requirements of military service and the armed forces. It said the termination of the petitioner was justified, and since the religious sentiments and the morale of the troops were in question, a formal court martial was "unsuitable for resolution" as it could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the armed forces. "While to a civilian, this may appear a bit harsh and may even sound far-fetched, however, the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different. The motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards," the court observed. "We find no grounds to interfere with the Impugned Order dated 03.03.2021. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed," it held.
