Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Summary Court Martial decision and the Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment because a sepoy was wrongly denied the legal assistance he sought at his own expense. Army Rule 129 conferred an option to obtain assistance, unrestricted to capital charges. The resulting loss of livelihood and liberty demonstrated prejudice. Further lawful steps remained open to the authorities.
Issues
- Whether legal assistance under Rule 129 could be refused because the Summary Court Martial did not involve an offence punishable with death.
- Whether the denial caused prejudice requiring the disciplinary decision to be set aside.
Provisions considered
- Rule 129, Army Rules, 1954The accused could choose assistance from a legal adviser or another person. The assisting person could advise and suggest questions but could not examine witnesses or address the court. (¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 11, 15)
Held
- The word “may” in Rule 129 referred to the accused’s option to seek assistance. The specific rule governing Summary Court Martial could not be displaced by the cited regulation concerning capital offences. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)
- Major G.S. Sodhi concerned different provisions and factual circumstances in a General Court Martial, including actual representation by a defending officer; its finding of no prejudice did not resolve the present case. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The appellant sought a lawyer at his own expense and faced dismissal and imprisonment. Denial contrary to Rule 129 violated natural justice, with evident prejudice to both livelihood and liberty. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Interference rested only on the natural-justice violation. The authorities remained free to take further steps permissible in law. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Armed Forces Tribunal judgment and decision based on the Summary Court Martial set aside. Further steps in accordance with law left open to the respondents.