Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Saturday, September 8, 2018

Implications on the Indian Military: The decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Section 377 IPC

EXPLAINER

The implication of the ruling on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the Indian Military

Many have posed questions to me on the above subject and my views were also carried by publications and circulated on social media. However I thought I would clarify my opinion on the matter in a more detailed manner:

Since Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been read down by the Supreme Court of India to the extent of consensual sexual activity, the same implications shall follow on the invocation of the said Section in the military if pressed into service in terms of Section 69 of the Army Act (AA) which entitles the military to try personnel for offences under the general law of the land.

The term “unnatural” as it exists in Section 46(a) AA would have to yield to the same interpretation as has been applied by the Supreme Court for Section 377 IPC. I do not agree with individuals who have commented that the terminology “unnatural” as it appears in Section 46(a) AA needs to be specifically stuck down by a Constitutional Court or repealed by the Parliament. It has already been held by the Supreme Court that homosexuality is not “unnatural” and hence it does not lie in the mouth of anyone to state that it is not “unnatural” for the purposes of Section 377 IPC or for civilians or other human beings but it continues to be “unnatural” for the purposes of Section 46(a) AA and for defence personnel. Let us also remember that the Supreme Court has not stuck down Section 377 IPC but has merely read it down and interpreted it. Bestiality etc would continue to be “unnatural” under Section 377 IPC as per the judgment and hence would remain an offence under Section 46(a) AA as well.

Disgraceful conduct of a cruel or indecent kind would continue to remain an offence under Section 46(a) AA.

Homosexual activity between two individuals would continue to remain an offence where similar heterosexual activity is falling under the realm of an offence. The decision may protect private consensual sexual activity between two individuals where it is not causing any implication on military service but any homosexual activity which is not consensual or any such homosexual activity which might be an offence in the military backdrop even if it had been heterosexual, would not be protected.

Moreover, no such reservations or worries have been expressed as yet by the official establishment and it won’t entirely be correct to state that the military is acutely concerned or worried. Like society at large, the military also self-adjusts to changes in law or interpretation of law and there is no lack of progressive thought in adapting to new situations within the military, and hence undue controversy need not be generated till any such issue arises, which would be addressed within the four corners of law when required. It may also be appreciated that multiple situations cannot be predicted in such scenarios with due certainty.

Monday, August 6, 2018

My book, Maimed by the System (2018) available at 33% discount till 15th August


My book, Maimed by the System (2018), would be available at 33% discount till Independence Day, 15th August, 2018 at www.notionpress.com/read/maimed-by-the-system

Use discount coupon- HUMANITY


Thursday, July 26, 2018

My interview to All India Radio


All India Radio interviewed me early morning today on Kargil, disabled soldiers, the effect of stress & strain of military service on health, welfare of soldiers, and beyond....

May lend an ear if inclined, or interested.


Thanks. 

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Why does India need its own Farr and Flipper to undo miscarriage of military justice!


My piece on military injustice, also published @ Medium.

Not many in India would have heard about a young British soldier called Private Harry Farr. Not many would also have heard about the ‘shot at dawn’ memorial at Staffordshire in the United Kingdom.

The memorial is a tribute to 309 British and Commonwealth soldiers who were court martialled and shot during World War I primarily for offences of cowardice and desertion. Young Harry Farr was one of them. This battle hardened soldier fought bravely for the British in the First Great War. His trench was shelled and he sustained a disability due to which he was repeatedly admitted in hospital. At one stage he was refused admission in a medical establishment on the pretext that he was not ‘physically wounded’. He was suffering from ‘shell shock’ or what is now known as Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD).

Private Farr, in a fragile frame of mind, went missing for three hours, and when located, was arrested and arraigned before a Court Martial, which, after a mere twenty minutes of trial, awarded the punishment of death by a firing squad.

The family fought a long war for justice when documents were discovered that despite his medical condition the young soldier had been forcibly sent to the front. The family could not meet success even at the High Court. Despite being refused positive judicial intervention, the United Kingdom, in 2007, granted a posthumous pardon to Private Farr thereby restoring the family’s honour. And with him, due to lack of individual evidence, a total of 306 soldiers executed that dawn were pardoned, providing them the benefit of doubt.

Then is the story of Lieutenant Henry O Flipper of the United States Army. Lt Flipper, born a slave, was the first African-American cadet at West Point to have graduated and commissioned in the US Army. As a military engineer, he was the inventor of the ‘Flipper’s Ditch’, a drainage system for malaria infested swamps, which is still used. Lt Flipper was accused of embezzlement and Court Martialled. He was found ‘not guilty’ of embezzlement but convicted for ‘conduct unbecoming of an officer’ for not having informed his Commanding Officer about some missing funds in his unit, and dismissed from service in the year 1881. Post his dismissal, Lt Flipper built up a successful career also recognized by the Government which appointed him at high offices. Interestingly, despite having been dismissed from service, West Point instituted an award in his name and placed his bust in the academy. Perusal of documents of the conviction pointed out the bias in his trial. It was long thought that his dismissal was the result of an inherent resentment towards African-Americans at the time. It was also discovered that the then Judge Advocate General of the Army wrote a detailed note to the President stating that his dismissal was unwarranted but it was never put up to the President and his dismissal was approved through a one-line non-speaking order. While reviewing the documents and showing moral courage of impeccable nature, the US Army in the year 1976 opined that his conviction was unjust but also stated that it had no power to overturn it, however his dismissal was converted into ‘honourable discharge’ which was permissible with the powers of the Army. In 1999, fully restoring the honour of the first officer of colour commissioned into the United States Army, the then President, William J Clinton, granted a full and unconditional pardon to Lt Flipper.

It’s ironic that the basic provisions of Courts Martial, especially Summary Courts Martial, practiced by the British during World War I, remain the same as on date under the Indian statute except cosmetic changes. The only real changes in how the provisions are effectuated have been forced upon the system due to judicial intervention primarily by the High Courts and the Supreme Court over the years. Though it is also totally agreeable that today’s military hierarchy is much more sensitive towards injustice or miscarriage of justice than the rank and file of the yesteryears. There was a time when the Courts could not even go into the appreciation of evidence of Courts Martial, something which was altered much later in the year 2009 with the inception of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Why do I write this.

Why I am writing this here today is that due to the primitive nature of military justice being practiced in our country in the past, there are glaring instances of injustice and miscarriage of justice that have come to light years later, some due to a closer analysis in hindsight. Some are such which appear so nonsensical that these would not seem compatible with any of the values professed by our great military which is the pride of the nation. Many affected fought it out and succeeded, but some lost judicially and yet others did not even try. Some died without closure, some are living and looking for closure, and interestingly, under the Indian law, setting things right, even after a judicial verdict to the contrary, is not a far-fetched idea and is in fact provided by the statute, thereby triggering my urge to write this today.

Two glaring examples come to my mind:

The Samba Spy Case
Much has been written about this case popularly known as the Samba Spy Scandal. Many books have also been penned. Many of those affected have exhausted their legal remedies as per law and the judgment rendered in their favour by the Delhi High Court was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court on an appeal filed by the Union of India. There is, hence, no judicial remedy remaining. But other doors are still not closed, as I would explain a little later. Coming back to the case, de hors the fact that they were unable to secure a final decision in their favour, there are some extremely jarring notes that would move even an untrained non-legal eye-

All accused were implicated essentially on just the statements of two spies, that is, Sarwan Das and Aya Singh and an officer of the rank of Captain who implicated (by his statements) about 52 personnel including, hold your breath, an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s department. The two spies were initially arrested in 1975 but they apparently named others in 1978. The said Captain clearly stated in his cross examination that he had been badly tortured to elicit his statements.

The entire case was built up on the premise of the statement of Aya Singh that one Capt Nagial was the initiator and had visited Pakistan in the year 1974. The charge was later established to be false and Capt Nagial was acquitted of the same by a Court Martial but implicated and convicted in some other case. When the foundation itself was faulty, there was no reason for proceeding in the matter.

Around 40 to 50 personnel and officers were finally accused of spying for Pakistan. All of them were from the same location of a Brigade based in Samba, a small town. Is it possible for such a large number of people being involved in spying for Pakistan from such a small station?

Statements were obtained from another Havildar, called Ram Swarup, who died of injuries after interrogation. The case was built up on confessional statements but there were large-scale allegations of torture.

Aya Singh, the kingpin on whose statements the case had progressed, was apparently killed later while crossing the Indo-Pak border. Could a person with such credentials be considered a reliable witness and could his statements be relied upon to implicate such a higher number of personnel located in a small town?

When no evidence was found by Court Martial against some personnel, their services were administratively terminated.

It is understood that a report was sought by the then Prime Minister from civilian agencies which established that the large-scale implications were no true.

Swaran Dass later made an open statement under oath that he had implicated innocent personnel after being tortured. The statement, made in 1994, was widely covered in the media as were other aspects of the case.

The above points do shake the very foundation of allegations of a large-scale conspiracy. On the face of it, something drastically went wrong somewhere but the wheels were not turned back to avoid criticism.

The curious case of Brig Pritam Singh
In one of his recent articles, Lieutenant General HS Panag, the former General Officer Commanding of Indian Army’s Northern Command, provided an interesting insight into the travesty faced by Brigadier Pritam Singh, known as ‘Sher Bachha’ (Son of a Tiger) on account of his stellar contribution to the battle of Poonch in 1947. Wounded in World War II, Brig Singh was also awarded the Military Cross after he escaped a Prisoners of War Camp. For one year, Brig Singh, then a Lt Col, resisted all the might of the enemy and ensured the retention of Poonch with India. He was promoted to the rank of Brigadier immediately thereafter (as per the system in vogue, officers were promoted directly from Battalion Commanders in the rank of Lt Col as Brigade Commanders in the rank of Brig). Though his contribution is legendary and he was again wounded in the Poonch operations, which area would have had a different history but for the valiant officer and his resolve, this piece is not about his military prowess. Brig Singh, in 1951, was dismissed from service by way of a Court Martial for misappropriating a sum of about Rupees Ten Thousand and a carpet. Other charges were also put into motion, but all collapsed. The carpet was meant as a present for the Air Force from the Raja of Poonch but it was alleged that Brig Singh had stolen the carpet for his own use. Despite the testimony of the Raja that it was indeed a gift from him to the Air Force which was being transported by Brig (then Lt Col) Singh’s battalion, the Court Martial went ahead and convicted him without even examining any evidence or witness in his presence as mandated by law. The allegation of misappropriation was with regard to excessive amount drawn than the actual expenditure and the time when the offence had supposedly occurred was a period when Brig Singh was admitted in a hospital after being wounded in war. Failing to pin him down on corruption charges, the Court Martial managed to convict him primarily on procedural lapses. It was well known during those times that many of his peers were envious of the trajectory of his career and the accolades he had achieved and the word amongst the military masses was that the entire episode was a result of this jealousy to stop his ascent.

Those times were strange. Punishments handed down by the military were not questioned. Courts were loath in entertaining petitions against military authorities and individuals were not aware of their rights. The direct result was that many injustices went unchallenged and this too, perhaps, was one in that list.

Bigadier Pritam Singh died in Punjab, unsung.

Restoring the Clock.

However, there is still a chance of redemption, but not by way of judicial remedy since the same is closed in the Samba Spy Case and barred by limitation in Brig Pritam Singh’s case. The fact that many of those who were affected are no more living makes the situation even more complicated.

Though invocation of judicial remedy is not possible, the Central Government still can very much undo the harm caused to the very concept of justice in such cases. Section 165 of the Army Act empowers the Government to annul any proceeding of any Court Martial on account of being illegal or unjust. This power is unfettered and it does not matter whether a person has exhausted his or her legal remedies or not, and with what result. If, based on the material available, the Government comes to the conclusion that the Court Martial was not just, it can annul the entire proceedings and restore the honour to those who were treated unjustly. In cases of those whose services were terminated or Presidential Pleasure withdrawn, the same, being merely an administrative non-judicial act, can always be reversed by the same authority which had passed the orders of punishment in the first place.

The remedies that I speak of above are not ordinary and are meant for extraordinary situations. However, keeping in view the fact that the systems of military justice in the yesteryears were primitive and there is a possibility of innocents having been meted out unjust punishments, it would only be right, with due diligence, to explore this exercise with full moral courage for restoring their honour.

We need our own version of Private Farr and Lieutenant Flipper here. Though there is bound to be resistance in such cases citing wrong precedents being set, a hackneyed and regularly exercised excuse, a strong political will can make it happen. Besides, setting aside of unjust actions is not a new phenomenon and that is the very reason such rules exist to undo miscarriage of justice. If ‘precedents’ are to be given so much undue emphasis, then the mere existence of those provisions in the statute book becomes superfluous and infructuous.

Will we have our Farr and Flipper moment in India?

Time will tell.

Friday, June 15, 2018

Op-ed: Making Short Service Commission attractive in the military


My op-ed for DNA on the need to make Short Service Commission more attractive, introducing contributory pension, thereby lowering the pension bill and leading to better cadre & promotional management, and why the current initiatives may require bolder, tougher & more innovative decisions-

Making Short Service Commission 
attractive in the military

India Needs Short Service

Major Navdeep Singh

Military circles were abuzz with the news that the government was finally in the last stages of fine-tuning a ‘golden handshake’ for Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) of the Defence Services in order to make the scheme more attractive and also to reduce Permanent Commissioned Officers thereby making the military a lean fighting machine and also bringing down the pension bill.

Nice aim, wrong route.

Always expected to be notified ‘very soon’, the proposal for a better payout for SSCOs has been doing the rounds since last many years in a dusty file sent into an orbit in the unwieldy space between the ministries of finance and defence. Notwithstanding the same, the proposal as also projected in the media, is quite imbalanced and shall be of no help in attracting talent or reducing shortages. The interesting aspect of the issue is that this topic has been discussed and deliberated by a Committee of Experts constituted in 2015 (Chapter 7.5) by the then Raksha Mantri, Mr Mahohar Parrikar, in great detail, of which this author too was a Member, but knowing the ways of the Defence Ministry, the top hierarchy and the political executive would have been kept in the dark about the recommendations pertaining specifically to SSCOs.

Firstly, Short Service Scheme, for the longest period in the past, was operated on a 5 + 5 + 4 years basis, that is, initial terms of engagement of 5 years and thereafter extendable till 14 years. In the year 2006, it was changed to 10 + 4 years, meaning thereby that SSCOs were mandatorily stuck in the military for 10 years without any assurance of post-release civil employment, without pension and without protection of seniority in case of joining civil service. The current scheme therefore is imbalanced, if not exploitative, since it leaves young men and women in the middle of nowhere at crossroads of life in the fairly senior rank of Major or Lieutenant Colonel, and many times unemployed at an age when familial commitments are at peak. The immediate action that is required is hence to revert to the time-tested 5 + 5 + 4 system or the 7 years terms of engagement recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission.

Secondly, instead of providing a higher amount of lumpsum payout as a ‘golden handshake’, the government should explore the possibility of introducing a handsome gratuity for SSCOs serving for over 5 years and Contributory Pension Scheme for those serving above 10 years or making them amenable to the New Pension Scheme (NPS) at par with civilian employees. This singular step would make the scheme most attractive amongst all other options, perhaps even more than Permanent Commission, and being contributory in nature, will keep the government’s pension bill in check. In fact, a contractual scheme with contributory pension could even be introduced for jawans willing to serve for fixed terms of engagement of 10 years if they do not want to enrol for longer prevalent terms under the existing defined pension and ‘One Rank One Pension’ scheme, which can continue for the ones opting for a permanent career in the military. While keeping the future pension bill controllable, such personnel would be free to pursue other vocations on their release from the military with a back-up for survival. This could be complemented with pre-retirement management, technical or skilling courses, on which the military is already working quite progressively, and which would equip personnel on contractual terms for life beyond the uniform.

Thirdly, the government must immediately take steps to restore the limited medical facilities wrongly snatched from SSCOs in the mid 2000s on the call of the military medical establishment. Accepting the recommendation of the Committee of Experts for rightfully restoring medical facilities, the then Raksha Mantri had directed action on the  same in August 2016, but till date the establishment is resisting the issuance of implementation instructions based on the directions of the Defence Minister. In fact, taking the clock further back, Mr AK Antony, in November 2009, had even announced in the Parliament the extension of the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) to SSCOs, but nine years later, nothing has materialized.

Encouraging the Short Service Scheme or contractual terms in the military with a balanced contributory pension scheme is the call of the day. Besides making the military an attractive option for those who would only like to spend a few years in uniform and then carry on with the civvy street, it would also make the defence services leaner and meaner while reducing the overall pension bill of the future. It would also result in optimum cadre management and better promotional avenues and prospects for those who opt for a permanent career in the forces.

But the pertinent question, like always, is whether reformatory and innovative schemes will ever see the light of the day and whether the political executive and decision-makers would consult the right people- the stake-holders, the experts, former and current SSCOs facing the practical predicament of the existing scheme, or would the decision-making mechanism only rely upon the notings of some bored junior bureaucrats of the finance and defence ministries sitting in a prosaic section of those grand old buildings designed with the assistance of Herbert Baker in the 1910s.

Only time would tell.

The author is an Advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and writes on law, public policy and military related issues.

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Much awaited policy for Housing Allowance of Ranks other than Commissioned Officers issued


Vide much awaited orders, the Government has finally notified new housing allowance rates for Ranks other than Commissioned Officers thereby replacing the existing ‘Compensation in lieu of Quarters’ (CILQ), as well as Family Accommodation Allowance (FAA) and Single in lieu of Quarters (SNLQ).

The rates would now be determined as follows:

If the concerned employee has dependents:

In field postings, he/she will be paid full House Rent Allowance (HRA) as paid to other employees at the Selected Place of Residence of his dependents. However if Government accommodation is available at the said place, then the HRA would not be paid.

In case of non-field postings, if the soldier is staying in the barracks due to functional requirements, the HRA would be paid at a rate reduced by 5% at the Selected Place of Residence of the dependents. In case the soldier is not staying in barracks, then full HRA shall be paid if Government accommodation is not available.

If the concerned employee has no dependents:

In case of field postings, full HRA as admissible to Class Z cities shall be admissible.

In case of non-field postings, if the soldier is staying in barracks, HRA would be paid at a rate reduced by 5% as applicable to the station of posting. In case the soldier is not staying in barracks, then full HRA would be admissible if Government accommodation is not available.

A soldier with dependents during his field posting or who is being made to stay in barracks during non-field postings due to functional requirements, shall remain eligible for accommodation for his dependents anywhere in India.  

The above instructions are as per recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission rendered in Paragraph 8.7.26.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Heavy limited period discount on my book, Maimed by the System (2018)


My book, Maimed by the System (2018), would be available at a discount of 33% all this month (From 18th May till 31st May, 2018) from this link: https://notionpress.com/read/maimed-by-the-system

Please use Discount Coupon- HUMANITY

I would want all of you to read it :)


Thursday, May 17, 2018

Govt issues policy for grant of substantive ranks of Capt, Major, Lt Col to Short Service Officers issued under the old scheme (5+5+4 years)


Most would be aware of the fact that the Ministry of Defence and the Army Headquarters had withdrawn the appeal filed by them in the Supreme Court against grant of substantive ranks to Short Service Commissioned Officers (both men and women) commissioned under the old terms (5+5+4 years) as implemented after acceptance of the AV Singh Committee Report. The benefits had been refused due to a self-created negative stipulation though no such prohibition had been imposed by the Cabinet which had extended the benefits to all Permanent and Short Service Officers without distinction. When the Armed Forces Tribunal had directed the Government to extend the benefits to affected officers, the decision of the AFT was challenged in the Supreme Court.

The appeal was however withdrawn earlier this year on the intervention of the current Raksha Mantri. The details of the decision can be accessed through this news-report that appeared in The Week.

Now, the Government has issued a policy dated 10 May 2018 extending the said benefit to all similarly placed officers, including those who had not approached Courts. Though there are additional conditions imposed in the policy which were never imposed by the Courts, the step is in the right direction since it results in avoidance of unnecessary litigation on the subject.

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Maimed by the System (2018) reviewed by The Delhi Defence Review


The Delhi Defence Review has reviewed my book, Maimed by the System (2018).

If you haven't read it, please do so, these stories need to be shared, told and assimilated. All purchase links available at www.navdeep.info

The review by Saryu Bansal can be accessed by clicking here.

The following is its reproduction:

Being Maimed by the System: A note

Saryu Bansal

‘The moment that justice must be paid for by the victim of injustice it becomes itself injustice’, said Benjamin R Tucker.

No contemporary published work elucidates this quote more than the book, Maimed by the System, a book that needed, no demanded, to be written. This book encompasses the struggle and strife of military personnel, veterans, disabled soldiers and their families who fought the system to get was legally due to them anyway.

As such, the book in question, which is a revised edition,  has been authored by Major Navdeep Singh, a practicing advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court and a (former) Territorial Army officer.

The book is in two parts – the first comprises 22 accounts of the travails and tribulations of soldiers and their families who have had to fight protracted battles with a seemingly unsympathetic system, to claim their rights, post-disability. The second part compiles selected works of the author published on various platforms. This part also recounts the problems faced by the men in uniform at the hands of apathetic institutions, governments and policy makers.

The idea behind the book is to foreground the difficulties faced by soldiers and their kin, and to make contemporary society aware of the prevalent situation, in the hope that it will serve as a catalyst for galvanizing support to change the narrative. It must be said, that this book could not have come from a more befitting person, someone who has been a witness and stakeholder on both sides, having served as a soldier and now is a part of the legal system.

Though the preface mentions that these are also stories of hope and triumph, they sometimes leave the reader with a sense of despair.  Consider the case of disabled soldier, Bachan Singh, who fought in Cairo in World War II. Released by the Army on grounds of disability, he had to fight for six decades to get his pension, and received it at the age of 98, only to pass away right after. In those decades of penury, he lived in a Gurudwara for sustenance. It seems that the system not only takes away the financial support that is due to our soldiers, but also strips them and their families of their right to a dignified existence. The adage ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, rings hard and true, one would think.

Now the book itself is a relatively easy read and is devoid of unnecessary military and legal jargon.  The stories are succinct, to the point, including only relevant details. However, the stories could do with direct quotes from the soldiers and their families, to make the reader feel their pain even more acutely. Despite this, the book achieves what the author had set out to do. It is a well-researched book, clearly bringing forth the lackadaisical attitude of the system towards giving those who have served and lost, what they deserve. The book reveals how policies are misinterpreted and end up being held above the Constitution and the law. The author believes that ‘judgments repeatedly rendered by Courts are not applied to other affected parties based upon principles settled therein and equally and similarly placed individuals are forced to litigate on same issues again and again and again.’

However, as the author says, the aim of this book is to inspire us to do good, and not complacently sit on our hands. Efforts on his part, and that of others, are perhaps beginning to bear fruit. The amount of litigation has definitely come down, but much is yet to be achieved. And that is why this book had to be written and demands to be read, because all of us have to fight for the rights of those who fought for us, day in and day out.

* * *

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Pensions of Major Generals enhanced with effect from 01 January 2006


The Ministry of Defence, on being prodded by the Supreme Court, has issued orders complying with the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal related to the pensions of Major Generals with effect from 01 Jan 2006.

The Supreme Court, in the famous case Union of India Vs SPS Vains had laid down the principles for fixation of pension with effect from 01 Jan 1996, that is, the date of applicability of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC).

However, a somewhat similar anomaly arose after the 6th CPC too, when affected pre-2006 retiree officers, again led by General Vains approached the Armed Forces Tribunal which further directed the Government to give effect to the principles of the decision of the Supreme Court for the new 6th CPC regime also.

The decision was however challenged by the Government in the year 2011 in the Supreme Court and it is pending in the Supreme Court since then. During the said pendency, the Ministry of Defence had implemented the decision for the litigants in the said case but not for other similarly placed pensioners and family pensioners. The Supreme Court, in December 2017, had pointed out that the decision should have been implemented for all similarly placed officers and not only litigants after which the Government had sought time to do the needful.

The Ministry has now issued orders for all other officers and the appeal of the Ministry of Defence is now more or less infructuous since the relief has been extended by the Government itself to affected officers.

The orders can be accessed by clicking here.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Op-ed in DNA : Rising disabilities in the military- a misdirected approach

Below reproduced is an op-ed published today by the "DNA" on rising disabilities in the military. 

Rising disabilities in the military- a misdirected approach

Navdeep Singh

Earlier this year, in a tragic coincidence, four officers of the Indian Army passed away on account of cardiac arrests, in different parts of India, on the same day. Between that day and today, many more non-operational disease-related deaths have been reported, and the same have been spiralling upwards since the past many years.

The military is always perceived to be fitter, stronger and healthier than the civil populace. But this, sadly, is a myth. When compared to civilian government employees, members of the military and other uniformed forces face a considerably higher stress and strain of service which affects health in a detrimental manner, a fact which is universally recognized by all major militaries. Incurring a disability while in service entitles soldiers to disability benefits on retirement and higher death benefits to the family in case of death, and the applicable rules provide a presumption of ‘service-connection’ of disabilities which are acquired during service. However, in order to avoid such payouts, the system has been wrongly branding such disabilities as “neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service” which is not only against ground realities, but also against rules and decisions of Constitutional Courts.

Though the Courts, the highest of political executive, Government’s legal advisors, Committees set up by the Defence Ministry and also the military medical authorities have time and again ordained sensitivity towards such disabilities, liberal grant of disability pensions and also withdrawal of appeals filed by the Ministry against disability benefits of its own disabled soldiers in the Supreme Court, it is highly unfortunate that the hands of senior political leadership and higher bureaucracy have been restrained by misleading and mischievous file notings initiated by lower bureaucracy to deny such benefits to soldiers and projecting them as somewhat greedy. To take an example, to elicit a negative response from the top, the financial entities of the Defence Ministry have instilled a feeling that such disabilities can occur in civilians too and hence uniformed personnel do not require any special dispensation- a thoroughly erroneous supposition.

Firstly, file initiators have hidden from the hierarchy that this thought-process militates against the basic entitlement rules which list even conditions such as heart disease, hypertension and neurosis as diseases affected by stress and strain of service.

Moreover, what is glossed over is the fact that there are many unique stressors in the military and hence any parallel sought to be drawn with civil employees on this subject is inherently flawed. For example, soldiers and officers of uniformed services spend most of service away from family and lead regimented lives under strict military law, often in barracks and predominantly away from society. There is also an acute inability of fulfilling domestic and familial commitments. Freedoms are curtailed which may seem innocuous to the untrained eye but it takes a toll on a person’s health. Illustratively, even when posted in a ‘peace’ area, to undertake regular activities such as visiting the market a soldier needs to seek permission, sign multiple forms and be back in time for the roll call. A soldier is not available to provide or receive emotional support when required, even sexual needs remain unfulfilled. Again some seemingly benign examples- what does a person do when one’s child gets hurt? Kiss and hug the child, hold the child close, a luxury not obtainable by members of the uniformed forces. What does one do when there is a property dispute or any other administrative requirement? Follow it up with the local authorities and courts, something impracticable for men and women of the forces since they mostly remain away from home. The list is endless. All such factors give rise to a feeling of helplessness leading to stress and strain thereby aggravating the mental and physical conditions of soldiers and this also is the reason which prompted the Supreme Court to once remark that a soldier remains torn between the call of duty and family commitments.

It is however lamentable that financial entities of the Defence Ministry are able to tide over rules, binding judicial dicta and also political will and are able to elicit incorrect reactions from decision-makers. Apart from soldiers, a tirade was unleashed against senior officers of the military stating that high ranking officers have also been granted disability benefits. But why not? If a General is suffering from a disability known to be aggravated by stress and strain of service, why should she or he be denied because of rank? Some senior officers are at an even higher risk because of an elevated age bracket and greater responsibility. There have been multiple examples of Generals in the recent times suffering cardiac arrests and undergoing heart and other procedures due to extreme stress, can such live examples be brushed aside? People also speak of cases of senior officers hiding their disabilities in order to remain eligible for promotions. If true, then it is purely an administrative infraction for which remedy lies elsewhere and this has no connection with disability benefits which are purely linked with a person’s physical condition at the time of joining service vis-a-vis retirement. Moreover, it also means that the system needs to plug the holes in the annual medical examinations and at the same time harmonize and rationalize its promotional policies, make them practical and bring them in line with modern times so that people do not hide their medical status.  

With a sensitive and sensitized Defence Minister, one hopes that the law as ordained by Courts, recommendations of experts and the word of the political executive prevail ultimately, and not sadistic file notings of penny-counting accountants who bring a bad name to the establishment and avoidable distress to the military community. The focus also should shift to improving the health profile of the military in wake of heavily stressful conditions, and not saving money through a ham-handed approach. 

---

Major Navdeep Singh is a practicing lawyer at the Punjab & Haryana High Court. He is also the author of ‘Maimed by the System’. He writes on public policy, law and the military.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Yale releases the "Yale Draft"- Principles for Governing Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals


The Yale University has released the draft principles for ‘governing administration of justice through military tribunals’, an updated and amended version of the “Decaux Principles” on the same subject circulated by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2006. The principles, titled the “The Yale Draft” have attempted to resolve a few contentious issues and have taken into account intervening developments and have been drafted in a manner to clear the path for formal approval by the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.


In recent years, the system of military justice has remained in the news, from issues related to command influence and independence to the recent trial of civilians by secret military courts in nations such as Pakistan without affording full rights to the accused. Kulbhushan Jadhav of India was also tried by one such secret military tribunal in Pakistan, and sentenced to death, which became an international flashpoint.

The Yale Draft opens with the principle that military tribunals (courts) must be established keeping in view the principle of separation of powers and should be a part of the regular judicial system and should not function under the executive branch. The draft also states that the guarantees of fair trial offered by Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) must be adhered by military courts further stating that military courts must be ‘independent, impartial and competent’ with necessary legal training and qualification. It has also been asserted that Military courts have no jurisdiction to try civilians except where there are very exceptional circumstances justifying such a trial. The principles also reiterate respect of humanitarian law, public hearings and transparency in military trials and recourse to civil courts as guaranteed to civilians. The principles also call for periodic review of codes of military justice by an independent body.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Cap on education concession to children of military personnel killed, disabled or missing in action, removed


The controversial cap of Rs 10,000 per month recommended by the 7th Central Pay Commission and thereafter blindly accepted by the Ministry of Finance, which had caused much heartburn amongst the military community, now stands removed.

There is however a rumour doing the rounds that some extra conditions have been imposed and that the concession shall only be admissible for Government run institutions. The same is not correct. The concession is admissible for all Government recognized institutions.

In fact, the conditions mentioned in the fresh letter issued on 21st March 2018 are exactly the same as were in force prior to the capping. The same conditions were mentioned in the last letter issued in the year 2010 after the acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.

Thanks to all those who assisted in getting this controversial action reversed.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Maimed by the System: visit www.navdeep.info for discounted links

Visit www.navdeep.info for discounted links

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Not so good news from the Supreme Court for pre-1996 retiree Majors with 21 years of service

There is unfortunate news from the Supreme Court with respect to the case of pre-1996 retired Majors with 21 years of service who had claimed the pension of Lt Col and whose cases were allowed by various benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Supreme Court, while hearing certain appeals filed by the Government and others filed by some affected officers, has held that the said benefit is not available to those who retired prior to 1996. It may be recalled that the controversy had emerged from the situation wherein Majors who retired with 21 years or more commissioned service after 01-01-1996 had been granted the pension as admissible to the rank of Lt Col, while those who retired prior to 01-01-1996 with similar length of service, were being paid the pension of a Major. 

The Supreme Court has agreed with the arguments of the Union of India that the stipulation of grant of the scale of Lt Col to Majors with 21 years or more service was only available to those who were in service as on 01-01-1996 as per the Govt orders issued in 1997 and it dealt with pay and not pension and that also the Govt had itself equalized pensions of pre-1996 and post-1996 retirees in the year 1999. The Court has also relied upon an earlier decision in Col BJ Akkara Vs Union of India of the year 2006 in reaching the said conclusion.

I however personally feel that the following aspects were not placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the course of the examination of the issue:

A.    The anomaly did not actually flow from the Govt letter on pay of the year 1997 but emanated from later letters issued in the years 2012, 2013 and 2015 (with financial effect from 2006) wherein it was provided that Majors with 21 years of service who retired between 1996 and 2006 would be granted the pension of a Lt Col while those who retired prior to 1996 would continue receiving the pension of a Major. Hence, the controversy did extend to pension and was not restricted to pay.

B.    The equalization of pension as professed by the Govt of India before the Supreme Court came to an end with effect from 2006, that is, from the 6th Central Pay Commission regime. As on date, the basic pension of Majors with 21 years of service retiring after 1996 is Rs 81,502 while those retiring prior to 1996 is Rs 58,673. Hence the pension equation letter of 1999 cited by the Govt before the Court became redundant with effect from 2006 based upon the above mentioned pension letters issued in the years 2012, 2013 and 2015 which were not brought to the knowledge of the Court. Till the 6th Central Pay Commission, there was no disparity or negligible disparity due to overlapping scales. There has been no discussion or argument on the fact of issuance of letters issued by the Govt at later stages disturbing the equalisation of pension. The net result is the difference of pension, not pay, as reflected by the above figures. The net result also is that officers of the same rank retiring with the same length of service but during different periods have been saddled with a vast difference in pensions.


C.   In Col BJ Akkara’s case, relied upon by the Govt, the Govt had not placed full facts before the Court and the said case was later distinguished by the Supreme Court itself in Civil Appeal 10640/2013 KC Bajaj Vs Union of India decided on 27-11-2013 when the Court came down heavily upon the Govt for its incorrect stand and also for not projecting the correct facts. After this decision, the effect of Col BJ Akkara’s case was then nullified by the Govt itself by issuing letters granting the benefit to affected pre and post 1996 retirees based upon the later ruling of the Supreme Court in KC Bajaj’s case. The benefits were also extended to those officers of the defence services who were earlier refused the same after the decision in Col BJ Akkara’s case. This issue was explained earlier in this blog here. The later decision in KC Bajaj’s case has not been brought to the notice of the Court.

D.   The Court has not been apprised of the similar decision in Civil Appeal 1123/2015 State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Nath Sharma decided on 01-07-2015 which dealt with a similar controversy of pensioners of the State of Rajasthan wherein the issue was decided in favour of pensioners where also the State was claiming that the benefits were only applicable to pensioners who were in service on a particular date in the State.

The important points as above were argued and considered in various decisions by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, including in the case titled Maj Tarlok Singh Vs Union of India (not challenged by the Govt till now), but were perhaps not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court since the judgements that the Apex Court was examining did not have these arguments or issues on record. As things stand now, the Supreme Court decision is binding on all authorities till the time perhaps the matter again reaches the Supreme Court in other decisions decided in favour of pensioners, as and when those are challenged by the Govt, and when all points can be brought before the Hon’ble Court in the right perspective by those representing the parties.

Also, to clarify, this decision however currently affects only pre-1996 retiree Majors with 21 years of service and not those Majors who retired between 01-01-1996 and 14-01-2000 with 20 years of service and were not granted the benefits of the rank of Lt Col due to late issuance of the Govt letter on 14-01-2000 and who were granted relief on judicial intervention. The said category of officers is not affected by this judgement.


Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Different Uniforms, Same Flag!

My reaction piece in the DNA on the recent stormy exchange between Major Gaurav Arya and Mr Abhinav Kumar, IPS :

Different Uniforms, Same Flag

Navdeep Singh

That the Police and the Army share commonalities, including the somewhat similar structure of rank badges, is something that cannot be ignored. But to expect the Police to be completely militarised or to follow the same ethos or training, or be officered by the military, as professed by some military veterans, in all humility, is an unreasonable idea.

This topic I tend to avoid but there was extensive debate on the subject recently, generated by a strong opinion piece authored by a former Army officer, matched by an equally solid retort by a serving officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS).

The reason for friction
One issue that continually disturbs officers of the military is faster promotions in the IPS and thereby the heavier and at times exaggerated brass on comparatively younger police shoulders. While true to a large extent, historical parities having been unduly disturbed and the military having slid down the pecking order, we still need to give it deeper thought, though no doubt much has been written on it, including by this author. The problem is not faster promotions in the IPS but the much slower career growth in the military due to a variety of reasons, and the solution to which shall remain vexed because of the requirement of maintaining a steep pyramid. Agreed that there is bound to be dejection when an IPS officer of the 2000 batch wears a Major General’s rank badges in 2018 while his military batch-mates are Lieutenant Colonels or at best Colonels, or when it is analysed that while the senior-most police officer in a State was equal to a Colonel or Brigadier at one time but today wears the ranks of a Lieutenant General, but then one cannot blame the IPS for having an optimum promotional and cadre management at par with other comparable government services, neither can one expect police officers to refuse promotions in order to please the military! Rather than such prestige battles, the government and the political executive must be convinced to render serious thought to the massive stagnation in the military and slower than satisfactory career advancement. Of course, certain lopsided recommendations of successive pay commissions haven’t helped. 

Different strokes for different folks
Much has been stated about the desirability of induction of former military officers and personnel in the state police to ‘improve’ it or training IPS officers in military academies or providing the command of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) to army officers. While this appears attractive at the first blush, one has to realise the fluffiness of such broad statements. Firstly, the job of the army and the police is dissimilar. While the former has to destroy the enemy, the latter has to protect the community. The similarities hence end at the ceremonial drill. While soldiers need to operate in groups with competent leaders, state police personnel are expected to work even as stand-alone entities and to apply mind to investigation and crime prevention with certain powers under law being similar for all “Police Officers”- from Constable to the Director General of Police. Moreover, the police involves public-dealing while the military operates on insulated terms. While the police is required to be trained in crowd control and often fires warning shots in the air, the military is trained to fire on target. Hence a military academy is not the apt place for learning skills of lathi charge or nuances of investigation or CrPC and IPC. Ditto for the CAPFs. Though there is certain overlapping of roles in the case of border guarding forces, there is no similarity between forces such as CRPF and the army, these are best officered with their own cadre or from the IPS since they are meant to operate in close coordination with the civil administration.

Turf battles
In the dynamic security scenario of date, there might be shared areas of operation, but that does not take away the core functionality of different forces. It shall be in the interest of all services and forces, who incidentally serve the same flag, to develop mutual trust and serve shoulder to shoulder when required. To be honest, the voices against the police are shriller from the side of some military veterans, who at times, do not realise that for political interference and systemic problems plaguing the police, individual personnel cannot be blamed and those individuals come from the same neighbourhoods as the military and neither are they carrying out less onerous duties. If a newly commissioned Lieutenant has to command his men in arduous conditions, a young Assistant Superintendent of Police has to look after the law & order of a complete Sub Division with multiple police stations, a job not less exacting. To compare with foreign police services is also not in order since in many nations the induction into the police is primarily at only one level, and personnel get promoted all the way up to apex police appointments, while in India recruitment is at four grades. With diffidence I submit that our military community must realise that ‘military training’ is not the magic wand for curing all ills and other professions play an equal role in nation-building. There are many in-house aspects that require honest introspection, than expending energy looking into shortcomings of others.

National interest ordains that all services must work together, hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, to protect the concept of India. The political executive must however ensure that legitimate career expectations and social standing of the men & women in the military are not ignored and decisions on human management policies are taken in a well-rounded manner after due stakeholder consultation.