tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15032938443770130312024-03-16T11:48:39.793+05:30Indian Military : Service Benefits and IssuesFeel 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/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be discussed or entertained. This is a pro bono online journal in public service and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.comBlogger880125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-35520001115814570762020-06-28T21:20:00.002+05:302020-06-28T21:25:47.589+05:30Rebooting Tribunals and recalibrating delivery of justice: Opinion piece for Live Law by Justice Virender Singh & Maj Navdeep Singh<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The following co-authored piece has been published
by <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://www.livelaw.in/columns/rebooting-tribunals-and-recalibrating-delivery-of-justice-159039">Live Law</a></b> today:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Rebooting Tribunals and recalibrating delivery
of justice<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Justice Virender Singh<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Major Navdeep Singh<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">One of the lesser realised aftershocks of the
Emergency was tribunalisation as it exists today. A blow so hard that despite
multiple efforts by our High Courts and the Supreme Court, including
Constitution Benches, to wipe out the deleterious consequences, the ruinous
scars remain. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Tribunals in the present form were introduced
through the 42<sup>nd</sup> Constitutional Amendment when the concept was employed
as a tool by the executive of the day to blunt-out judicial functioning and it
was probably thought that by creating such bodies some of the subjects of
litigation could be taken out of the purview of the independent judiciary with
the said bodies functioning under and manned by the executive. Though the
Supreme Court put its judicial weight against such blatant attempts through
various landmark decisions such as </span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">RK Jain
Vs Union of India</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">
1993 AIR 1769, <b>L Chandra Kumar Vs Union
of India</b> (1997) 3 SCC 26, <b>Union of
India Vs R Gandhi</b> (2010) 11 SCC 1, <b>Madras
Bar Association Vs Union of India</b> (2014) 10 SCC 1 and <b>Rojer Mathew Vs South Indian Bank Limited</b> 2019
SCC Online SC 1456, yet, despite such heavy dicta favouring independence of
tribunals and streamlining of their functioning, the practical situation
remains almost the same as it did without these judicial milestones. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">In the latest Constitution Bench decision in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rojer
Mathew</i></b> (supra), the Supreme Court set aside the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications,
Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017</i></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></i></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">promulgated by the
Government which gave the Government unbridled power in the functioning and
control of tribunals. The Court directed the Government to institute fresh
rules in line with its decisions pertaining to independence of tribunals. New
rules were then framed earlier this year by the Central Government but these
carry out only superficial changes to the earlier rules and directly contravene
law laid down by the Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Let us scan a few examples. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The new rules do not correct the current
dispensation of tribunals functioning under parent administrative ministries
against which they have to pass orders. This contravenes the Seven Judge Bench
decision in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L Chandra Kumar</i></b> as well as the Five Judge Bench in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">R
Gandhi</i></b> wherein it was held that tribunals must not function under the
ministries against which they have to pass orders and neither should the
Members be granted facilities by such ministries. Hence, for example, the Armed
Forces Tribunal today functions under the Ministry of Defence which is the
first party in all litigation before it and against which it has to pass all
orders. But reflecting a complete conflict of interest, the Ministry also
happens to control its infrastructure, finances and staffing. Ditto is the case
with the National Green Tribunal and other tribunals which have to pass orders
against the Government and its instrumentalities. To top it all, complaints
against Members of tribunals are also to be routed through the same Ministries.
Even if it is taken only as a perception, the visible and invisible strings in
such a scenario and the impact on the psyche of litigants can hardly be
ignored.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The new rules also provide for the Secretary
of the Ministry/Department to sit in the Selection Committee for Members of
tribunals. Therefore, the person against whom orders are to be passed, also
selects his/her adjudicators. This arrangement was deprecated and called
“mockery of the Constitution” in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Madras Bar Association</i></b>. In fact, the
Selection Committee has been incorporated in such a manner that it can function
even in the absence of judicial representation whereas the Supreme Court has repeatedly
called for primacy to judicial representatives in such selections. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">R Gandhi</i></b>, the Constitution Bench had
called for a minimum tenure of 5 to 7 years for Members of tribunals, however
under the new rules, the tenure prescribed is 4 years with an upper age of 65
years, which also is theoretical. In case a retired High Court Judge is to be
appointed, he or she gets a maximum of 3 years in chair since the retirement
from the High Court is at 62 years. Practically, the tenure would be even
lesser since only in rare circumstances is a Judge appointed soon after
retirement. In such a situation, the non-judicial members get a longer tenure in
comparison since they join tribunals at an earlier age. Interestingly, under
these rules, the prohibition imposed on Members for further employment with the
State and Central Governments has been removed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Again in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">R Gandhi</i></b>, vague qualification
criterion for Members such as experience in economics, business, commerce,
finance, management etc was eschewed and struck down. Still, in the new rules,
the said criterion has strangely again been introduced for tribunals such as
the Armed Forces Tribunal and the TDSAT, the logic and legality both of which
is suspect. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">For efficient delivery of justice, tribunals
cannot function as stand-alone entities in vacuum without being configured with
an efficient countrywide justice delivery system and our Constitutional Courts.
Time and again the Supreme Court has emphasized on reducing the burden on the
highest Court of the land but there seems to be no end to routine, innocuous
and sometimes frivolous litigation reaching its gates. A Constitution Bench in <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><b style="font-style: italic;">Bihar
Legal Service Society Vs Chief Justice of India </b>1987 AIR 38<b style="font-style: italic;"> </b></span></span>had
observed that the Supreme Court was only meant for exceptional cases and in
most matters the High Court must remain the final arbiter. It was repeated
thereafter in many decisions that the highest Court of the land must only
interfere in Constitutional matters of general public importance or ones with pan
India implication, however the Court is on the contrary burdened by mundane
appeals and issues such as consumer and matrimonial disputes and direct appeals
from tribunals which should not otherwise find themselves at the entrance
invoking the majesty of the highest Court of the largest democracy. Today, the
term “Special” in “Special Leave Petition” itself has become almost otiose and
redundant. Even otherwise, access to the Supreme Court remains difficult and unaffordable
for most litigants as also observed in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">RK Jain</i></b>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L Chandra Kumar</i> </b>and
recently again in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rojer Mathew</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">There could be a few suggested practical solutions
to the conundrum:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(a) In line with the
original thought behind the availability of Special Leave to Appeal under Article
136, the matters reaching the Supreme Court by their very nature must be very
rare, involving points of law of general public importance or interpretation of
the Constitution, pan nation implication or where there is a major conflict on
a point of law between two or more High Courts. The Division Benches of the jurisdictional
High Court, an equally efficacious Constitutional Court, must be the final
arbiter as observed in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bihar Legal Service Society</i></b>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L
Chandra Kumar</i></b> and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rojer Mathew</i></b>. Of course, jurisdictions
such as the exclusive and advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be
exercised by any other Court. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(b) Tribunals must
function only under the Ministry of Law & Justice and not under parent administrative
ministries and with the best possible facilities to Members to attract the
optimum talent, with a sufficiently long tenure and under the aegis of an overarching
body such as the National Tribunals Commission as suggested by jurists like Mr
Arvind Datar and also observed by Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Deepak
Gupta in their separate observations in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rojer Mathew</i></b>. The Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal is a shining and successful example of a Tribunal functioning
under the Ministry of Law & Justice. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(c) Excessive
tribunalisation must be avoided except in highly technical areas since
litigants are known to express more faith in the regular judiciary. Whenever
instituted, tribunals must not be laden with vague eligibility criteria such as
experience in economics, business, commerce, finance, management etc thereby
making all and sundry eligible. Rather than creating more tribunals, the High
Courts need to be strengthened. Giving stable rosters to High Court Judges can
also bring in more understanding in various specialised branches of law. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(d) Tribunals can also
be created within the regular judicial system with existing judges since there
is a view prevalent, and not without valid basis, that non-judicial ‘experts’
appointed as Members carry over to the tribunal with them a certain over-familiarity
with the subjects which can breed subjectivity. Calling specialized bodies a
cause of decadence and decay, American jurist Judge Simon Rifkind, way back in
1951, stated that it “intensifies the seclusion of that branch of law and
further immunizes it against the refreshment of new ideas, suggestions,
adjustments and compromises which constitute the very tissue of any living
system of law”. There is yet another reason for the regular Court system being
more robust, and that is that Courts never stop functioning even when facing
critical shortage of judges, while tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies
come to a complete standstill because of non-appointment of Members or retirements.
Interestingly, in certain classes of litigation, the pendency has rather
increased after creation of tribunals. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(e) Widening of the
intra-court appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts for appeals from Single Bench
decisions to Division Benches, thereby giving finality within the same High
Court in more subject matters, must be given due thought so as to provide an
affordable and accessible remedy and to unburden the Supreme Court from
hackneyed cases. This could be more practical than deliberating upon a ‘Court
of Appeal’ sandwiched between High Courts and the Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The issues concerning tribunalisation and
interconnected delivery of justice are not ones which cannot be tackled. It seems
that though the political will to harmonise these issues was never lacking, due
to some reason or the other, and want of consensus amongst stakeholders including
opposition by various ministries, we remain stuck in a whirlwind of total chaos.
As back as on 2<sup>nd</sup> August 2001, the then Law Minister, late Mr Arun
Jaitley, had stated in Parliament that the Government was moving towards implementation
of the decision in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L Chandra Kumar</i></b> by creating a separate Central Tribunals
Division. Something that has not fructified. More recently, the current Law Minister
had also appreciably alluded to the decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with
tribunals in his opinion piece for the Indian Express on 20<sup>th</sup> April
2017. The Prime Minister had also red-flagged issues related to tribunals in a
speech rendered on 4<sup>th</sup> April 2015.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">With the political executive having shown its
willingness to tackle these vexed issues, and on the strength of existing dicta
of the Supreme Court, there should be no reason why these matters should not be
resolved to the full satisfaction of all stakeholders, including the litigating
public, at the earliest. It would rather be in the fitness of things to robustly
overrule opposing voices that are not letting the vision of the political
executive, the spirit of the Constitution and the decisions of Constitutional Courts
take full effect and shape. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> -----</o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Justice
Virender Singh is Former Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand & Former
Chairperson, Armed Forces Tribunal.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Major
Navdeep Singh is a lawyer at the Punjab & Haryana High Court & </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 13.0pt;">Member of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">International
Society of Military Law and the Law of War</i>.</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-43100173365206974152020-05-31T15:16:00.000+05:302020-06-05T15:17:17.752+05:30Joint opinion piece with Lt Gen Satish Dua for the Sunday Guardian- The Military has no Martyrs <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Lt Gen Satish Dua and I have co-authored this
opinion piece for ‘The Sunday Guardian’ where we argue why the term ‘martyr’ is
not appropriate for fallen soldiers, and in fact it is unsoldierly. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">op-ed</i>
can be accessed <b><u><a href="https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/military-no-martyrs">here</a></u></b> at the official website of <a href="https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/military-no-martyrs">The Sunday Guardian. </a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-8478720445579129342020-05-11T20:05:00.002+05:302020-05-11T20:08:57.017+05:30Book release- Military Pensions: Commentary, Case Law & Provisions (Now available for pre-order with inaugural discount) <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9zWLROYMGYB3S1EbSeSYEKgWLZ-gvbkKrMqZDmfzfvl7OVdOj-1SobNW5YnGbpZD_lZ1tI_AjJegPfRyfAHf6N9yz6w74gbMwbsCYWdg4JYxa-HRkWwCXmbvTde1C8NVJRguwFOEnnapL/s1600/Military+Pensions_3D+Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1299" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9zWLROYMGYB3S1EbSeSYEKgWLZ-gvbkKrMqZDmfzfvl7OVdOj-1SobNW5YnGbpZD_lZ1tI_AjJegPfRyfAHf6N9yz6w74gbMwbsCYWdg4JYxa-HRkWwCXmbvTde1C8NVJRguwFOEnnapL/s320/Military+Pensions_3D+Cover.jpg" width="259" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">MILITARY PENSIONS:
Commentary, Case Law & Provisions</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> is a treatise
containing easy-to-understand commentary on various types and modalities of
pension with the law governing the subject and a range of applicable policies,
rules and official letters, including some rarely available ones.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Instead of publishing Three
Volumes on Paperback, we decided to have it all in one big volume. It is
a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">large format Hardcover Reference
Book with 33 Chapters</b> covering the length and breadth of the subject.
More details of the book are available at <a href="http://www.navdeep.info/" target="_blank">www.navdeep.info</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The book has been
soft-launched and is now <b>available for order/pre-order at</b> <a href="https://notionpress.com/read/military-pensions" target="_blank">https://notionpress.com/read/military-pensions</a> (Use
the Coupon Code <b>VICTORY</b> for limited period launch discount). You may
order it now and the book shall be delivered soon after deliveries are
permitted to commence by the Government.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A formal global launch with
availability on all channels shall be initiated soon, in better times, after
the lockdown is lifted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Reference Book is priced
at Rs 1299/- and is available at 15% limited period discount as
above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Part of the proceeds shall
go towards military veteran welfare. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-4315262412527134482020-02-23T19:49:00.000+05:302020-05-11T19:53:58.458+05:30"Won’t be talking point a few years down the line", my op-ed for The Asian Age on women in the military <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">My opinion piece for <b><i><a href="https://www.asianage.com/360-degree/230220/wont-be-talking-point-a-few-years-down-the-line.html">The Asian Age</a></i></b> (23<sup>rd</sup> Feb 2020) on women in the military, in the backdrop
of the Supreme Court decision on the subject:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; line-height: 115%;">Won’t
be talking point a few years down the line<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Constitutional Courts propel equality in the
military<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Navdeep Singh <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The decision of the Supreme Court of India
granting women the same career progression as men in the Indian Army, has
generated quite a debate. The Apex Court has upheld the judgement of the Delhi
High Court which had asked the Ministry of Defence to consider women for grant
of Permanent Commission (PC) at par with male officers. Till that point of
time, women officers were only allowed Short Service Commission (SSC) under the
“Women Special Entry Scheme” upto a maximum of 14 years, while male SSC
officers were eligible to be considered for PC. The minimum service required to
earn a pension in the defence services being 20 years, women officers were
mandatorily released from service at crossroads in mid 30s, without a permanent
career, without financial backup or social security and at an age when family
and other commitments are at peak.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The debate on the subject however seems to
have veered off the mark. Many commentators, including some military veterans,
have questioned the physical ability of women to command troops in frontline
combat, while others have raised a worry about a situation if a woman officer
is taken Prisoner of War (POW) by the enemy and some have even spoken as to how
would women give 100% to their job considering there might be maternity breaks
in between. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Much of these discussions are otiose. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Firstly, the issue before the SC was not
frontline combat but simply grant of PC and ‘command appointments’ instead of
‘staff appointments’ and that too in earmarked posts. While the litigation was
pending, the government had issued a policy allowing women to be considered for
PC with a caveat that they will not hold ‘command’ positions at par with men
and would only hold specified posts. The policy also unreasonably required
women to provide the option for PC within 3 to 4 years of service while there
was no such condition imposed on men. It was the contention of the litigants
that they could not be slotted in specific posts when there were no such
fetters on their male counterparts. It may be noted again that the issue was
not “command” in combat arms on the battlefront but regular appointments involving
command of troops in branches in which women were already serving as SSC Officers.
In any case, such a policy was absurd on the face of it since it allowed them
to hold myriad appointments while they were SSC Officers but restricted their
employability as soon as they became permanent. In certain quarters there was a
fear that women would usurp ‘soft’ appointments leading to additional pressure
on males who would remain deployed in tougher areas. However, their
employability on varied (rather than restricted) appointments should now rather
terminate this fear since it is known to all that it would be a level field
hereafter, without any favour based upon gender. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Secondly, when there is no deployment of
women on frontline combat, there is no question of them being taken POW. And
even if hypothetically they were so deployed, they are soldiers first and then
women, and our concern should be regarding an Indian soldier taken POW, and not
a woman. In any case, to raise an issue which is an impossibility just to
create some kind of an emotionally chilling effect does not seem judicious.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br />
Thirdly, the bogey of maternity leave is quite lame. It is well known that this
is likely to emanate during the younger years and not during the later years
when such officers are granted PC. When this has not posed a problem during SSC,
why would it interfere during PC when the incidence, on the contrary, is likely
to be very low? Members of other uniformed organisations, such as the Police
and the Central Armed Police Forces, have accepted them with open arms without
any impediment and it is painful to hear such regressive comments from members
of the military community. Needless to state, some of these organisations
deploy women in much tougher roles and in lower ranks. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I have always maintained that women in the
defence services are not meant for parades and showcasing in events but must be
placed in responsible positions in multiple roles to the greatest extent
possible. The switch-over would result in some churning and may require some
fine-tuning but a few years from now, this will not even remain a talking point
with women & men well assimilated in a system characterised only by merit
and competence. he positive and very mature statements of the Raksha Mantri and
the Army Chief only point towards an egalitarian and progressive time ahead for
the military aided with some practical and well-chiselled policy interventions
in the near future.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">- - - <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
author is a lawyer in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Member of the
International Society of Military Law and the Law of War. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-20309304042370699542019-10-14T19:16:00.000+05:302019-10-14T19:16:13.423+05:30Oped for Times of India | No need to vilify OROP or disability pensions: Problem of burgeoning military pension bill has practical solution<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My oped for the <b><i><a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/no-need-to-vilify-orop-or-disability-pensions-problem-of-burgeoning-military-pension-bill-has-practical-solution/">Times of India</a></i></b>:</span></span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Burgeoning Military Pension Bill- the need
for practical solutions<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
is a need for ingenious solutions rather than vilification of concepts like
OROP or Disability Pension<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Major Navdeep Singh<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Defence spending is again in news, and with
it the common censure of the allocation being consumed mostly by pay and
pensions. While we may choose to weigh in with emotional calls of soldierly
pride and sacrifice et al, dispassionately seen the hazard the pay and pension
bill poses is not easy to ignore. But then the solution does not lie in a
maladroit approach of demonising concepts such as ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP)
or disability benefits. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The heavy bill and its ascension with every
pay commission is indeed a cause of worry. Though the defence services have
been trying to shed some of their manpower, it is unlikely that this modest
curtailment would result in significant savings. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">So what is the solution?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The straight response would be to drastically
expand the concept of Short Service Commission (SSC), making it more attractive
and less exploitative, and also introduce a Short Service Engagement scheme at <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">jawan</i> level with contributory pension,
while concomitantly reducing the permanent staff under the existing defined
pension (OROP) system. This arrangement can result in maintenance of military
strength at the current levels but greatly reduce the pension bill.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Currently, officers are being offered SSC of
10 to 14 years after which they are compulsorily released without any pension,
except those who opt (and are selected) for permanent commission. Previously,
officers were allowed to exit after 5 years. Needless to state, the current
structure leaves them at crossroads without pension or guaranteed employment
almost in middle age with peak family commitments. The way out of the quagmire
is simple. Such SSC officers must be made members of a contributory pension
scheme under the National Pension System (NPS) as is now applicable to civilian
employees. Officers under the Short Service Appointment scheme of Indian Coast
Guard are already members of NPS, denying the same to their military
counterparts is anyway incongruous. There is also a requirement to protect
their status or seniority if they opt for civil government employment after
release. Similarly, there is a need to introduce a Short Service Engagement
scheme for recruitment at lower ranks- individuals who will serve for 10 years
and then released with NPS benefits and “ex-serviceman status”. Obviously,
these Short Service schemes would be voluntary and concurrent to regular
entries which shall continue to be on OROP dispensation. However, gradually the
number of the former may be amplified and the latter reduced. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The establishment would have to find
ingenious, albeit practical and non-exploitative ways, to reduce the bill, and
demonising OROP or disability pensions is not one of them. OROP is mandated by
the Cabinet and was promised by successive governments to cater to the
massively curtailed tenure of defence personnel who start retiring in their
30s. There is no going back on it. The way out is to reduce future OROP
beneficiaries by rationalising permanent staff. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Similarly, the recent furore over disability
pensions was unpleasant. Frequent transfers, regimented lifestyle, curtailment
of freedoms and inability to cater to domestic commitments result in
aggravation of common medical conditions in soldiers, a reality all militaries
face globally. Finding ways to reduce disability benefits is a cloddish
approach which will not curtail the incidence of disability. Rather, the
attempt should be to introduce policies to reduce stress & strain, provide
comfort and succour to soldiers to reduce the prevalence of disability and
consequently disability benefits. It would be imprudent and indeed irrationally
unique for us as a nation to attempt to vilify military disabilities to save
pennies rather than making lives of soldiers better. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Lateral induction of soldiers to other
organisations such as Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) has also been
propagated by successive pay commissions but opposed by the Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA). Perhaps the reason might be valid to an extent. CAPFs would not
want military veterans parachuting into their ranks and blocking their career
progression. But then there could be a solution by simply raising a separate
organisation of military veterans under the MHA and employ them for duties
configuring with their past expertise or utilize them for national
reconstruction roles or executing government schemes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The military pension bill is not an unruly
monster, however what is required to tame it is a balanced but determined and
humane political executive, and it seems the current <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Raksha Mantri</i> might just fit that description. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm; padding: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
author is a high court lawyer and writes on law, military and public policy. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-40154212875587505942019-08-03T10:31:00.001+05:302019-08-03T10:41:05.172+05:30"Maimed by the System" available at 33% discount till Independence Day 2019<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"> “...it is hope & triumph that the book embodies, not despair...”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">My book, “Maimed by the System” would be available @ 33% discount till Independence Day, 15th August, 2019.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">The discount is only applicable through this link-<a data-ft="{"tn":"-U"}" data-lynx-mode="asynclazy" data-lynx-uri="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.notionpress.com%2Fread%2Fmaimed-by-the-system%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3JokAgRtCf1q-VuB_hC43Uqnk53GkGLI2XkeNf5zpCBoISHYBeNp1mZ8g&h=AT3F7iKDbWmv56JwotF6-kH7Xp4V_vmFkyOhuPVFXmHEmdogX3Nr8oRfgazIwx_-ojtemhbNYhulouaxq4s276ZNm6wQ1LlkA6bkzTO5JwbOI5UhaJB3SWWhtJdqW73TmVbwClb74XmEXKZ-RkrRmyutJnY" href="http://www.notionpress.com/read/maimed-by-the-system?fbclid=IwAR3JokAgRtCf1q-VuB_hC43Uqnk53GkGLI2XkeNf5zpCBoISHYBeNp1mZ8g" style="cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #385898; text-decoration-line: none;">www.notionpress.com/read/maimed-by-the-system</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">(Use Discount Coupon- HUMANITY)</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Ml8zW3vI2N8r0SU7N_JRidp-Ws6sxxxsHBCI3MYD7sPFEvAoJpIJhRUvi3IDbsciI5RBMarTmQU7F85c34EdNuhvRdLOqClQo7tAlAtENz6SOFh2mx21_pbaSxw0wGOzfVu1Bk0mI27u/s1600/August+2019+discount.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="972" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Ml8zW3vI2N8r0SU7N_JRidp-Ws6sxxxsHBCI3MYD7sPFEvAoJpIJhRUvi3IDbsciI5RBMarTmQU7F85c34EdNuhvRdLOqClQo7tAlAtENz6SOFh2mx21_pbaSxw0wGOzfVu1Bk0mI27u/s640/August+2019+discount.jpg" width="387" /></a></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-41635411744369972182019-07-14T20:00:00.003+05:302019-07-14T20:00:31.724+05:30Opinion piece in ‘The Print’: “Problem isn’t taxing disability pension of Armed forces, but demonising disability”<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Ms Ratna Viswanathan and I
have co-authored an opinion piece for <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://theprint.in/opinion/the-problem-isnt-modi-govt-taxing-disability-pension-but-demonising-those-with-disability/260385/">‘The Print’</a></b> titled “Problem isn’t taxing disability pension of Armed forces, but
demonising disability”, which covers the raging controversy on the issue of disability
pension, the vilification and demonising of military disabilities and the
issues of concern that relate to low medical category soldiers in the military.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The same can be accessed by
<a href="https://theprint.in/opinion/the-problem-isnt-modi-govt-taxing-disability-pension-but-demonising-those-with-disability/260385/">clicking here</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-89445278457382497392019-06-28T11:21:00.001+05:302019-06-28T15:12:35.103+05:30Explainer on the concept of Disability Pension, Invalidation, and the recent controversy over tax exemption thereupon, viewed historically <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">EXPLAINER ON THE CONCEPT OF DISABILITY PENSION, INVALIDATION AND THE RECENT CONTROVERSY OVER
THE TAX EXEMPTION THEREUPON, VIEWED HISTORICALLY</span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Though I would be soon
writing a detailed opinion piece again on military disabilities and our faulty
approach on the same, it becomes important to put out some data and a few historical facts on the recent
controversy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The CBDT Circular:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The
CBDT has recently issued a circular stating that Income Tax Exemption on disability
pension would only be allowed to those disabled personnel who are invalided from
military service and not to those who are released on completion of tenure or
superannuation. It seems that the term ‘invalided’ has been taken by the CBDT
to mean those who are medically boarded out prematurely from military service
before their actual retirement, discharge or superannuation. The controversy
over this term is however not new. However, it becomes important to clarify
this issue in its historical perspective since some of this information would
not be available with the Finance Ministry, the CBDT, the Ministry of Defence
and even the Defence Services. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">History of Disability
Pension:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Wound, Injury and Disability Pension has remained applicable
to military personnel (combatant as well as non-combatants and even ‘private
servants’ of officers during old times), in one form or the other since the
days of the Crown. As the terminology suggests, it was granted for disabilities
suffered during the course of service or illnesses incurred while in service. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The term ‘Invalid’:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The
term invalid or invalided in military parlance simply referred to a person who
became an Invalid (disabled) while in military service. It had no connection
with “invaliding ‘out’ prematurely from military service”. A person who was
disabled while in military service was termed as an Invalid and when such a
person was discharged, whether prematurely or on completion of his terms, he
was discharged through a medical board and termed “invalided from” service (and
not invalided ‘out’ of service). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Exemption of Income Tax, 1922:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Income
Tax was exempted in the year 1922 for invalid soldiers and the same terminology
as above was used in the applicable military instructions as well as the exemption
granted by the Finance Department. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Governor General’s Orders of
1926:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Disability Pension attained exalted status in the year
1926, when GM Young, the then Secretary to the Government of India, Army
Department, issued a notification in the name of the ‘Governor General in
Council” stating therein that no public claim or public debt shall be recovered
from the Wound, Injury or Disability Pension of an officer or soldier. It may
be noted that this was applicable to disability pension across the board and
the term ‘invalided’ was not even pressed into service.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Confusion caused by 1940
Regulations:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The confusion on the term ‘invalided’ however
raised its ugly head when Pension Regulations, 1940, were published. Here, the
term ‘invalided’ was used in provisions related to disability pension giving an
impression that the term applied only to those who were prematurely boarded out
of the military. Although, the same regulations in the same breath also stated
that a person retiring on completion of service limits would be granted
benefits ‘as if he had been invalided’, again multiplying the confusion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Corrective action by
Government of India to clear the confusion:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The problem created
by the original (correct) definition of ‘invalided’ as also signified <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>by the notification issued by the Secretary,
Army Department, and the one that came to be incorrectly understood by military
accountants due to the publication of Pension Regulations 1940, however was
resolved by the Government of India once and for all in the year 1950 when the Entitlement
Rules, 1950, were promulgated and it was specifically underlined and provided
that the term ‘invalidation’ <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>for the
purposes of disability pension shall mean all military personnel who at the
time of release from service are in a medical category lower than the one in
which they were recruited. Meaning thereby, all Low Medical Category personnel
who were fit at the time of entry into service were conclusively declared to be
falling under the category of ‘invalidation’ thereby bringing the definition
back to its origins. These Rules of 1950 were officially appended with the
existing Pension Regulations by the order of the Central Government. This was
further provided in Ministry of Defence Letter No A/22255/AG/PS4 (d)/2725/Pen-C
dated 05 November 1969. The same was reiterated later in the form of Rule 4 of Entitlement
Rules, 1982. Needless to state, this action was very important and required
since there can be multiple categories of disabled personnel within the Army
and to perpetuate discrimination amongst them based upon the type of exit from
service would amount to hair-splitting. Some such categories are- those who are
prematurely boarded out since they are unable to cope up with life in the military
after getting disabled, those who opt to continue and serve despite the disability
and then retire on regular completion of terms/service limits, those who are discharged
since no ‘sheltered appointment’ is available, those who opt out of service
because of lack of promotion due to disability, those who are not promoted and
hence retired early at the age prescribed for lower ranks etc<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Litigation:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The
discrimination between disability benefits between those who are prematurely medically
boarded out and those who opt to continue to serve the nation despite the
disability also became a subject of many a litigation. Some such examples are
Civil Writ 2967/1989 Mahavir Singh Narwal Vs Union of India as affirmed by the
Supreme Court in SLP 24171/2004 disposed on 04 Jan 2008 wherein the Delhi High
Court explained and interpretation the term ‘invalidation’ and the decision of
the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 418/2012 in Union of India Vs Ram Avtar and
of course in Civil Appeal 5591/2006 KJS Buttar Vs Union of India.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Going back to the confusion
of 1940:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The term “invalidation” is hence adequately defined by
the Rules of the Government and interpreted by Constitutional Courts. The CBDT,
it seems, has however restrictively interpreted the term as per its confused definition
as it existed between 1940 (When Pension Regulations, 1940 were promulgated)
and 1950 (When Entitlement Rules, 1950 were put into force to clarify the term ‘invalidation’).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Demonisation of military
disabilities:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> What we also see today is unnecessary demonisation
of military disabilities. The incidence of aggravation of disabilities in
military personnel is much higher than civilian employees simply due to the reason
of frequent movements and unsettled life (which ironically continues even in peace
family stations due to an extreme shortage of family accommodation), regimented
lifestyle and barrack life away from family, inability to cater to domestic
commitments, inability to fulfil sexual desires, curtailment of freedoms, applicability
of a disciplinary code 24X7, exposure to stressful situations including operational
areas etc. Disability hence is not a sign of weakness and even the bravest of
the brave battle-hardened soldier can fall prey to it. As far as the rumour of
Generals cornering disability claims is concerned, the incidence of a disability
incurred in-service is bound to be higher in senior ranks simply because they
retire in their late 50s (upto the age of 60) while soldiers start retiring in
their 30s. The allegation of ‘fake’ or ‘feigned’ disabilities (though not the
reason for the CBDT Circular) is also laughable since the incidence of disability
is first endorsed by an Initial Medical Board, then by re-categorization
medical boards and then finally by the Release Medical Board at the time of
retirement. There are hence multiple doctors, all different and at different
locations in the country, who endorse the existence of a medical condition and
its percentage. So far as the thought as to why aggravated disabilities such as
heart disease, hypertension, depression, neurosis, psychosis etc are eligible
for disability benefits is concerned, the same is not some kind of a favour to
our soldiers since it is provided in pensionary rules for military as well as
other uniformed personnel that such disabilities are affected by stress and
strain of service and eligible for disability benefits. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ_aHAaLdwI_JNXm3BFi9m-Zxpe70AAW2LhUHZpo20_zRtR3Xj1PeJEft8Y1J_uXpbRN99UjR0lEoAVJHl5qjnaL0oV9Uuz1WT3z9NjJBGQLg4TjUELS-hB4VnUuFP43gNLF16fuEnvwZr/s1600/list+of+diseases.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="365" data-original-width="689" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ_aHAaLdwI_JNXm3BFi9m-Zxpe70AAW2LhUHZpo20_zRtR3Xj1PeJEft8Y1J_uXpbRN99UjR0lEoAVJHl5qjnaL0oV9Uuz1WT3z9NjJBGQLg4TjUELS-hB4VnUuFP43gNLF16fuEnvwZr/s320/list+of+diseases.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Rules for disability benefits in India</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Disabilities in other
democracies, their incidence and tax status:</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> In this context, it
would be instructive to examine military disabilities in other nations. An apt
example would be the US which also has an operationally committed military and
the pension rules are pretty much similar to ours and numerically the active
duty personnel are roughly the same. As per the official data maintained by the
Government, the incidence of disability in the military has gone up in the US by
117% from 1990 to 2018. Also, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">a total of
4.75 million veterans in the US are in receipt of disability benefits</b> (<a href="https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Quickfacts/SCD_trends_FINAL_2018.pdf">See official data here</a>).
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">In our country, the number of disability
pensioners is estimated to be less than 0.2 million</b>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The disability pension and compensation in the
US is <a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/information-for-veterans">exempted from Tax</a> as provided by Publication 525 of the Internal Revenue
Service.
Should we be concerned about the rise of incidence of disability in our soldiers and their
deteriorating health profile and provide them with comfort, care and succour, or should
we denigrate those who are suffering from illnesses and rather count pennies? More
than others, I ask this from the serving military fraternity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08NIkrAF_heRWkST-tqEK4HZJvjthyDnrLVTERq5-dcT1EeahFVJ-VILSvNkfy3OXbMPzSpi4XpuWZHJqLUkngi9WRaLoucU6WWSBT4zRkcRdDIVnZHYIHLta-wgg6GNlrdapHA6y55fX/s1600/VA+data+on+disability.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="1081" height="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08NIkrAF_heRWkST-tqEK4HZJvjthyDnrLVTERq5-dcT1EeahFVJ-VILSvNkfy3OXbMPzSpi4XpuWZHJqLUkngi9WRaLoucU6WWSBT4zRkcRdDIVnZHYIHLta-wgg6GNlrdapHA6y55fX/s320/VA+data+on+disability.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Veterans with Disability Benefits in the US</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVxDC8fhJhxBHxM_U9V_mK_i0BcScOxuY-1higQ64mAxxFYNonRIWZYEgK9MDixcGSVgtgEkUmb-f10-DEI6j_TnOOKQHR1mY4mrpS8Z1jwVfkC-TjEBpHAuJz-kHCq6dCLvkueKfE5W6b/s1600/IRS+Rules+for+VA+exemption.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="302" data-original-width="1281" height="75" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVxDC8fhJhxBHxM_U9V_mK_i0BcScOxuY-1higQ64mAxxFYNonRIWZYEgK9MDixcGSVgtgEkUmb-f10-DEI6j_TnOOKQHR1mY4mrpS8Z1jwVfkC-TjEBpHAuJz-kHCq6dCLvkueKfE5W6b/s320/IRS+Rules+for+VA+exemption.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Tax Exemption to disabled veterans in the US</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The above is meant to
clarify the technical and factual details on the subject since most of the
debate on the matter was following an emotional track. Emotions and high
sounding words like ‘sacrifice’ etc etc aside, the matter has to be dealt under
the right technical perspective and I am personally sanguine that the political
executive would be able to address this issue if provided the correct inputs
and data. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">Thanks</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">Navdeep.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-7892147319653153032019-05-25T20:03:00.004+05:302019-05-25T20:08:17.772+05:30The Budgam Helicopter Crash: Fog of War and Culpability<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;">I write for </span><b style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/budgam-chopper-crash-allegation-culpable-homicide-benefits-to-families-of-fallen">The Quint</a></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> on the
unfortunate helicopter crash which is being speculated to have been caused by
friendly fire and wherein it was hinted in the media that the concerned officers
may be tried for culpable homicide.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The
Budgam Helicopter Crash: Fog of War and Culpability</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Major
Navdeep Singh</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8H9Pw-3h96K1JliM0TvnBF63IuQmM0o7RCEhfATtlyeKTFBl9BJSNgPrO_eMyYPTBg0PulOKQWG71jJXimq65nSIfGs2h0vJTDc2pCi0soQxACpllXxQk1GXv77lEQ_cepS2dzMgoiTaI/s1600/quint.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="512" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8H9Pw-3h96K1JliM0TvnBF63IuQmM0o7RCEhfATtlyeKTFBl9BJSNgPrO_eMyYPTBg0PulOKQWG71jJXimq65nSIfGs2h0vJTDc2pCi0soQxACpllXxQk1GXv77lEQ_cepS2dzMgoiTaI/s200/quint.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Budgam helicopter crash
incident of 27<sup>th</sup> February in which we lost precious lives of air
force personnel, is again in the news. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There were reports in the
media that the chopper came down on account of friendly fire and that the Air
Force was contemplating trying the officers responsible for the incident for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">culpable homicide</i>. I even saw reports
and comments on social media that the pensionary and other benefits of the families
of the fallen would be determined as per the conclusions reached in the
investigation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I personally find the above
quite odd for a variety of reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Firstly</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">,
while the hint of the friendly fire aspect might be true, I do not feel that a
conclusion of all attendant circumstances <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua</i>
the fixing of the blame can be reached until the statutory Court of Inquiry
convened by the Air Force under the Air Force Rules renders its report. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Secondly</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">, in
case someone connected with the procedure has casually stated that the officers
would be tried for culpable homicide, the statement seems irresponsible simply
due to the fact that till now the Court of Inquiry has not reached a conclusion
or ascribed blame and hence it would be absolutely reckless and immature for
any person officially associated with the proceedings to make such a statement.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Thirdly</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">,
the decision to take action against the guilty, if any, is of the concerned competent
authorities under law and not that of the Court of Inquiry, which is simply a fact
finding body and recommendatory in nature. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Fourthly</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">, even
before the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, and establishment of culpability,
it would totally be inappropriate to prejudge the matter and far-fetched to
comment upon the sections of law under which a person would be tried. In fact, this
is one aspect that the defence services, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de
hors</i> the instant case, need to be quite alive about, since statements such
as “the concerned official(s) shall be given exemplary punishment” start flying
left, right and centre even from senior officers on any unfortunate happening
or alleged crime, which clearly gives rise to the fear of institutional bias
and prejudgement.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Fifthly</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">,
the incident, though extremely unfortunate, can plainly be ascribed to fog of
war and battle ambiguities, albeit highly undesirable in a limited conflict
situation, and would at the most be a case of negligence leading to death
(Section 304-A Indian Penal Code), and cannot, by any stretch of imagination,
be termed as culpable homicide (Section 299 Indian Penal Code), which requires
an element of “intention” or “knowledge”. In any case, there are specific
provisions related to such incidents available under the Air Force Act, such as
Section 62 (Offences in relation to aircraft and flying) which again grade the wrongdoing
into higher and lower category based upon the fact whether the action was
wilful or otherwise. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Sixthly</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">, it
would be inane to tag the issue with release of benefits to the families of
those who unfortunately passed away in this incident. The grant of benefits to
the families would have no connexion whatsoever with the culpability of the
concerned employees. The families of the fallen are casualties in an
operational area and are eligible to full and liberalized pensionary benefits
and ex-gratia as is available to deaths in operations. The locale of the
incident is a notified operational region. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While the incident was
extremely unfortunate, it is hoped and expected that the Court of Inquiry
reveals the nuts and bolts of the happenings of that fateful day, not only to
establish the truth, but also to ensure that such mishap never happens in the
future. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I am confident of the fact
that not only would the Air Force go into the very minute details of the matter
without prejudging any guilt of any personality involved, but would also
display the moral courage expected of it in unravelling the truth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Irrespective of the
regrettable circumstances surrounding this incident, the nation and the defence
services firmly stand behind the families of those whom we lost that day in
February.</span></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-51815557217486673822019-04-30T20:10:00.003+05:302019-04-30T20:58:02.793+05:30Need for the military community to stay away from disruptive and litigious tendencies based on hearsay<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I am all for enforcement of legal rights and
fully believe that one of the most precious privileges of a citizen in our democracy
is the ability to challenge the might of the State. However a recent phenomenon
of fanning litigious tendency in the military, that too, based upon hearsay or
perceived injustice, is quite alarming. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">A false picture is embedded in many minds
that litigation or creating an uproar coupled with notional and emotional calls
is the answer to everything, forgetting in the bargain that Courts cannot intervene
unless there is infringement of a legal right or policy or rule or when there
is a patently perverse and arbitrary action. Every time a matter comes to note,
many within the military community take recourse to commenting upon it, without
even checking its background and veracity, displaying a tendency that goes beyond
even trade unionism. Some even start floating calculation sheets based upon <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intended</i> litigation, again on tittle-tattle,
thus raising expectations without reason which might ultimately result in dejection
and frustration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">While it is true that the system of redressal
of grievances in the defence services leaves much to be desired, and </span></span><a href="https://swarajyamag.com/defence/grievance-redressal-systems-in-defence-forces-need-fixing-and-urgently" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">I have written on it earlier</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, this disruptive tendency might succeed in drawing
eyeballs on social media but only a graceful approach, that too limited to real
and solid issues, can help in resolution- institutionally or legally. Many members
of the military community also start deriding senior military leadership on
social media by creating a </span><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">hullabaloo</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> but take no steps to institutionally
resolve a matter by even putting it in writing to the concerned quarters or finally
taking it to its logical legal conclusion. Again there might be instances
wherein senior leadership would have taken actions that were not well-rounded
but that may not always be the case. And where there is actual injustice, again
the way to address is to take legal recourse in a refined manner, with malice
towards the anomaly, not against the personalities involved. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Not just seniors, even <a href="https://medium.com/@navdeepsingh.india/faux-regalia-in-the-real-unforgiving-world-look-at-yourself-in-the-mirror-part-2-3c2a68c29576">civil servants continue to bear the brunt of the military community</a> on social media. Most of
this anger emanates from the real and perceived acts of bureaucracy in the Ministry
of Defence. But one must not forget that the actions of elements in the Defence
Ministry are not reflective of the entire civil services and neither should one’s
vision be so restricted that the impression of the entire civilian staff of the
Republic of India is tagged with what happens in some corner of a table of a junior
staffer of one ministry in Delhi. The projection that goes out on social media
is that the military is being persecuted, which we all know is not the case and
one can imagine the negative impact this has on the morale of the rank and
file, almost bordering on disaffection. This <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fastest finger first</i> syndrome is also spilling into other domains.
Certain messages with communal undertones are also spread on military groups,
some injected by the adversary, and these are further embellished with utterly
immature comments not expected from someone who has worn the uniform. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">We fail to realise that this subtle injection
of hate is meant to divide our society and this subtle injection of
disaffection is meant to neutralize the strength of our military and create
schisms. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Be aware. Be careful. Be wise. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Thanks,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Navdeep.</span></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-72464431115554042942019-03-07T18:40:00.000+05:302019-03-07T23:06:57.078+05:30Medical facilities to non-pensioners of the military: Historic day for Short Service Commissioned Officers, Emergency Commissioned Officers, World War II veterans and pre-mature retirees<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Cabinet has today extended
the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) to the above categories of
non-pensioners of the military.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Non-pensioner ‘ex-servicemen’
were initially granted medical facilities in Military Hospitals in 1970 but the
same were discretionary. Later, ‘pension’ was made mandatory to avail such
facilities. Again in 1997, the term ‘ex-pensioners’ was replaced by ‘ex-servicemen’
thereby restoring the facilities to non-pensioners having ‘ex-servicemen’
status such as Short Service Commissioned Officers and Emergency Commissioned
Officers (SSCOs and ECOs) who were made entitled to Outpatient (OPD) facilities. However, in the late 2000s, the facilities were
withdrawn by the office of the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services
(DGAFMS) despite stiff resistance by the Army HQ.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The matter went into
litigation wherein the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) ultimately
directed the Government to restore the facilities to the affected ex-servicemen.
The Government though filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the verdict of
the AFT.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The matter was referred to a
Committee of Experts, of which I too was a Member, which, after deliberating
the subject, recommended the following: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(a)
Existing limited outpatient medical facilities in MHs to non-pensioners holding
the status of Ex-servicemen to continue as per already approved instructions
and Services HQ to continue issuing and honouring Medical Entitlement Cards for
such facilities as was the case till late 2000s. The entitled non-pensioners
also continue to be eligible for medical reimbursement from Kendriya Sainik
Board. It may be pointed out here that the said facilities are anyway not
entitled to be granted to re-employed ex-servicemen or those who are members of
any medical scheme. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(b)
The unethical appeal filed against grant of such facilities to own personnel to
which actually they were legally entitled to, be immediately withdrawn and such
ego-fuelled actions be avoided in the future. We wish such persistence and
exertion in pursuing such misdirected litigation is rather used for
constructive activities. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(c)
ECHS facilities for SSCOs as mentioned, as already approved in-principle by the
then Raksha Mantri and mentioned in the Parliament on the floor of the House,
be implemented forthwith by overcoming all objections. The same be made
applicable to all SSCOs and ECOs and all other personnel released without the
benefit of pension but on completion of terms with a gratuity, present and
former, with certain amendments as deemed appropriate such as that the scheme
can only be extended to the officer and spouse alone and that it would not
apply to those who are re-employed with a cover of an organizational medical
scheme. The issue of financial implication may not be relevant since firstly
the scheme is contributory in nature, and secondly, the then Raksha Mantri has
already made a statement to the effect on the floor of the house. Besides
bringing succour to our veterans, it would act as a major morale booster to the
rank and file and also help attract talent to the Short Service Commission
Scheme. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(d)
It is recommended that the Government must go all out to bolster the resources
of the military medical establishment since they are rendering impeccable services
in trying circumstances to our men and women in uniform. There should never be
an occasion wherein doctors perform duties under pressure. An environment free
of all encumbrances, external constraints and stress must be ensured for the
medical establishment to function in an efficient manner<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The recommendations were
accepted by the then <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Raksha Mantri</i> Mr
Manohar Parrikar but were not given effect to for a long period. The Supreme
Court had taken a grim view of the delay and had asked the Government to
resolve the matter by April 2019. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Cabinet has today
approved the extension of ECHS to various categories of non-pensioners of the
military and it is understood that on the appreciable insistence of the current
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Raksha Mantri</i> Ms Nirmala Sitharaman,
even other categories such as pre-mature retirees, which were not covered in
the recommendations of the Committee of Experts or by judicial dicta, have also
been brought in the ambit of the scheme. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Broadly speaking, eligible beneficiaries and their spouses would be entitled to absolutely free Outpatient (OPD) facilities at ECHS polyclinics, however treatment and In-patient (IPD) facilities at ECHS empanelled hospitals would be on payment basis. Further, 50% of such expenditure would be reimbursable for personnel with 10 years service or less and 75% would be reimbursable for those with more than 10 years of service. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This marks a closure to long
drawn travails of affected officers and personnel. My congratulations to them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Navdeep <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-86497134564802146882019-02-22T19:34:00.005+05:302019-02-22T19:35:32.594+05:30Minimum qualifying service requirement of 10 years for INVALID PENSION stands abrogated for uniformed forces <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This would probably be one
of the most important moves in recent times for disabled personnel of the
uniformed forces.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">On judicial intervention of
the Kerala High Court and further prodding by the Supreme Court, the Government
has finally abrogated the minimum qualifying service condition for the grant of
Invalid Pension, which till now stood at 10 years, for all those government
organisations where services of employees are not protected on sustaining disability.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Concept
of Invalid Pension:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Invalid pension is
applicable to those government servants whose disability is not related to government
service in any manner, even remotely, and for which 10 years qualifying service
was prescribed. It is different than disability pension which is granted for
disabilities which are related to or deemed to be connected with government
service in any manner, such as any disease incurred while a person is in government
service. In case of disability pension, there is no minimum service condition
prescribed and it consists of two elements- service element and disability element.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
predicament faced by uniformed services:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The service of government
servants who incur any kind of disability in service is protected by Section 47
of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (now replaced by the new Act of 2016
wherein Section 20 provides the same protection). The said Act protects the
employment of disabled government servants and provides that the government
shall not dispense with the services of a disabled government employee. The
provision also further provides that even in case a disabled government
employee cannot be adjusted on any suitable post, he or she may be kept on
supernumerary strength till the age of superannuation (60 years in case of
Central Government) and resultantly be paid full pay and allowances, and
pension thereafter, even if the affected employee is unable to attend to any
official duty. The problem however was that the defence services and other
uniformed services including the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were
exempted from the operation of the above progressive provision by way of a
notification. Resultantly, many members of uniformed services were denied any
kind of pension (if their service was below 10 years) when released from
service with disabilities without any connection or deemed connection with government
service. Hence on one hand, their services were not protected in case of
sustaining disability like other government employees, and on the other hand,
they were denied pension also which was like double jeopardy for the members of
uniformed forces. This issue had been commented upon by me in detail in the
year 2012 which can be <b><a href="http://www.indianmilitary.info/2012/04/stark-discrimination-between-disabled.html">accessed here</a></b> for an even better perspective and a comparative
chart showing the acute discrimination. The Seventh Pay Commission did not
agree with the request of the defence services for abrogation of the minimum
service requirement. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
new orders:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">On account of judicial
intervention by the Kerala High Court and further prodding by a Three Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court, the Government has now abrogated the minimum 10
years requirement for grant of Invalid Pension for all those organisations
where the service is not statutorily protected on sustaining any kind of
disability. This mostly affects the uniformed services. This has been done by
way of amendment of Rules 38 & 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972 [CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972]. Changes in military pension rules
should also be expected as a corollary, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mutatis
mutandis</i>, as is the prevalent practice. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
net effect:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The net effect is that any
member of a government service who is invalided out or seeks invalidation (seeking
retirement on account of disability) shall now be entitled to Invalid Pension irrespective
of his or her length of service. Of course, those with disabilities declared
service-connected or deemed to be service-connected/attributable or aggravated by
service, shall continue to remain eligible for disability pension for which no requirement
of any minimum qualifying service is applicable. This directly and positively affects
all disabled personnel who cannot continue in service due to medical reasons even
when their disability is not related to government service in any manner. Though
disabilities and diseases incurred while in service are deemed to be service-connected
as per the liberal provisions of the Extraordinary Pension Rules, 1939 on the
civil side and Entitlement Rules, 1982 on the military side, thereby entitling
such personnel to disability pension without any linkage with length of
service, as also time and again reiterated by Constitutional Courts, the
maximum benefit of the change would accrue to such personnel who are released
from service (or cannot continue in service) due to disabilities suddenly incurred
soon after joining training or where there is an element of negligence in
sustaining the disability or a purely genetic or congenital disability discovered
after joining service etc. This change is valuable to such personnel and
protects their livelihood and dignity since they would not have been discharged
from service on account of any disability had they joined a non-uniformed
service. The discrimination hence stands addressed to a large extent.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
effective date:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The new provision takes consequence
from 4<sup>th</sup> January 2019. However the effect on past retirees is a
little ambiguous as of now but it is hoped and expected that past retirees also
would be granted the benefit from the above date. This seems most logical since
the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules (which now stand amended from 4<sup>th</sup>
January 2019) in any case do not apply to post-2004 appointees on the civil
side who are now governed by the contributory New Pension Scheme (NPS).
Therefore by this change, the persons directly affected are those who were governed
by the 1972 Rules, that is, only those who were appointed prior to 2004. A
minimum guaranteed pension under the NPS is however already under consideration
which makes it probable that in view of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ibid</i>
change in the 1972 Rules, even post-2004 appointees under NPS would not be left
high and dry if released with a non service-connected disability with less than
10 years of service. On the military side, there is bound to be no complication
as such since there is no system of a contributory pension prevalent and the
new provision should logically, when implemented, apply across the board but with
financial effect from 4<sup>th</sup> January 2019. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-46686926250569922152019-02-19T21:41:00.003+05:302019-02-19T21:41:46.425+05:30Withdrawal of litigation against disabled soldiers <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">It gives me immense satisfaction in stating
that I have been given to understand that the Raksha Mantri Ms Nirmala
Sitharaman has directed the withdrawal of appeals filed in the Supreme Court
against disabled soldiers by the Ministry of Defence since the past many years.
As is well known, multiple appeals till the highest Court of the land were
filed against disability benefits granted to disabled veterans on judicial intervention
by various Courts and Tribunals despite the issue attaining finality with a
series of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in favour of disabled soldiers.
In fact, progressively going a step further, it seems that directions have also
been passed by the Minister to concede appeals filed by disabled soldiers in
the Supreme Court on a case to case basis in all matters which are found to be
covered by judicial dicta. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Though this matter and many other issues
related to litigation and redressal of other grievances were considered by a
Committee of Experts in 2015 constituted by the then Minister Mr Manohar
Parrikar, of which I was a Member, the implementation of the accepted recommendations
was moving at a slow pace but we were assured by Ms Sitharaman about concrete
action earlier this year. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">This
provides closure to a very emotive issue wherein though the financial implications
were minimal still the grim reality of a nation fighting its own disabled
veterans was heartbreaking since it is well known and universally recognized
how stress and strain of military service, a regimented lifestyle away from the
family and inability to effectively cater to domestic commitments result in
aggravation of existing physical and mental conditions of the women & men
in uniform. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I express my thanks to Mr Parrikar and Ms
Sitharaman in dealing with the subject sensitively and in a totally apolitical manner
devoid of any political inclination. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I also express my gratitude to Mr Rajeev
Chandrasekhar, Member of Parliament, for consistently taking this up with the
political executive till resolution, without whose support this issue would not
have reached national consciousness, and of course my dear friend, the brave
Major DP Singh, who remained at the forefront of the cause.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The recommendations of the Committee of
Experts can be <a href="https://mod.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reportcc_0.pdf">accessed here</a> (Paragraph 2.2.1 specifically deals with disability pensions).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The official press release of the Ministry of
Defence when the Committee had rendered its recommendations, can be <a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=131870">accessed here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Thank You. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-67301900729860475132019-02-01T09:19:00.002+05:302019-02-02T11:04:39.887+05:30Ministry of Defence enhances the minimum payout to casualty pensionary awards to a basic pension of Rs 18000<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued
orders for basing the minimum basic pension @ Rs 18000 for disability
pensioners (combined rate of service element/service pension + Disability
Element), war injury pensioners, liberalized family pensioners and special
family pensioners. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br />
The orders of the MoD dated 29<sup>th</sup> January 2019 can be accessed by
<a href="http://www.desw.gov.in/sites/default/files/D%28Pen-Pol-29.01.2019%29.pdf">clicking here.</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The above orders have been issued in consequence
of directions of the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) issued
for all such pensioners under various ministries, issued on 12<sup>th</sup>
October 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The original orders of the DoPPW can be
<a href="http://doppw.gov.in/sites/default/files/ppwf_12oct2017.pdf">accessed here.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">Note may be taken of the fact
that the orders are likely to only affect cases wherein the existing total
payout is less than Rs 18,000. For example, in a case where the total of basic
service element/service pension plus disability element is currently less than
Rs 18,000, the same will be upgraded to the said amount. </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-7886516793824868752019-01-05T11:14:00.000+05:302019-01-05T11:15:35.120+05:30Joint opinion piece on defence decision making, in 'The Tribune', authored by General VP Malik and Maj Navdeep Singh<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">General VP Malik and I attempt to address issues related to the decision-making process in the defence establishment, in <a href="https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/pretext-of-checks-and-balances/706238.html">"The Tribune"</a>. The unabridged version is as below:</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Defence Decision-Making Process:</span></u></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Time for Change<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">General VP Malik<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(Former Chief of the Army Staff)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Major Navdeep Singh<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Decision-making process of the defence
establishment with its myriad complexities has always remained a vexed issue.
It has been a cause of alienation with people in uniform, court cases, delays
in acquisitions and procurements, lack of integration & jointness, and
several other aspects of national security. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">This opinion piece does not break much new
ground but the aim is to emphasise the need for our political leaders to debate
and decide on this issue promptly, and to that end, this attempts to work as a
catalyst.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Under the Rules for Allocation and
Transaction of Business framed in 1961 the defence services have absolutely no
role or powers ascribed to them. The Defence Secretary is allocated
responsibilities for “Defence of India” and ancillary facets during war with the
“Armed Forces of the Union” and the three Services Headquarters subordinately designated
as “Attached Offices of the Department of Defence”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The professional heads of the three services
charged with the command of the armed forces, and responsibility of national
defence as well as conduct of war, neither have been accorded a status nor
granted any powers in the edifice of the Government of India. By default, the
Defence Secretary is thus tasked with the “Defence of India”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The obvious reason is that for many years
after independence, there was deep-rooted suspicion, fuelled by happenings in
the neighbourhood, as to whether the military in India would continue to remain
in barracks under the control of the cabinet or would take to adventurism. Although
the defence services have remained staunchly loyal to the Constitution and acquitted
themselves admirably in peace and conflict, certain vested interests have not
allowed obliteration of that suspicion. As a result, the military has been kept
in a box, not allowed to participate in the policy or decision-making loop. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Our political establishment, hence, despite
the vastly changed strategic environment, nature of conflicts, and the
imperative need to consult defence chiefs directly on such issues, has been deprived
of this facilitation. Some Defence Ministers like Jaswant Singh and Pranab
Mukherjee, and Prime Ministers like Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, met
the service chiefs more often than others. But the institutionalised system and
the defence decision-making process was never resolved. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Over a period of time, certain changes have
been incorporated. Limited financial powers have been delegated to the defence
services and the file movement system also minimally altered. But these changes
remain cosmetic. The spirit and substance of the integration of the Ministry of
Defence including decision-making have not been altered. The nomenclatures may
have changed from “Army Headquarters” to “Integrated Headquarters of Ministry
of Defence (Army)” but within the Ministry itself, the old terminology and
processes continue to be followed. Even today, despite the manifesto of the
ruling party calling for “ensuring greater participation of Armed Forces in the
decision-making process”, not much seems to have moved towards resolution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">While the inherent suspicion towards the
military waned with time, the pretext of ‘checks and balances’ gained momentum
for keeping the defence services out of actual decision-making. Needless to
state, the requirement of such checks and balances is entirely vital and no
single entity, the military included, can be provided a free run without
scrutiny or without being counter-questioned on its proposals. But the question
remains as to whether a counter-balance as at present, wherein decisions of the
Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) are allowed to be commented upon in the form
of file noting initiated by junior non-specialist civilian employees should
continue, or whether a collegiate system be instituted at the apex level wherein
collective defence related recommendations or decisions can be taken subject to
the approval of the political executive.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The system currently followed, besides causing
suspicion and distrust, often results in delays and sometimes imbalanced
decisions. While this is not to say that the decisions of the military should be
allowed to prevail without question, we only suggest that the conclusions
should be based upon collective deliberations with collation of proper views of
all stakeholders on an equal footing before they are put up to the political
authority for sanction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">It is also a matter of concern that in some
spheres where powers have been delegated, the system is being rendered
infructuous with too much leeway being displayed by military authorities. To
take an easily understandable example, powers to determine disability benefits
of officers have been conferred upon military authorities and appellate
committees. However, even after processing such proposals in consonance with
the rules and after due affirmation by executive, legal and medical authorities,
the same are abandoned by the senior military authorities based upon objections
by junior finance officers whose duty is only to calculate <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a>expected
financial outgo and not comment upon the merit of the subject. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">One solution that comes to our mind is
instituting a format such as the “Defence Board”. Within that, a judicious mix
of senior military and civil officers could debate proposals and then reach a consensus
which can then be put up for approval of the Minister. The Defence Board is not
an alien concept among democracies. The United Kingdom has a Chief of Defence
Staff for its strategic and operational needs as a single point military
consultant. Additionally, it follows a Board system chaired by the Defence
Minister (Secretary of State for Defence) with members from civil and defence
services and also non-executive board members. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Closer home, the decision-making for the
Railways via the Railway Board is featured in the Rules of Business. The decision-making
process of the Board is headed by the Railways Minister and comprises a healthy
mix of members from different cadres and technical streams under a Chairman
from the Railways.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">India has a large strength of defence
services involved not only in operational and strategic matters related to
external defence but also in its internal security and disaster relief and many
other types of aid to civil authorities during peace. Like other democratic
nations, our defence forces have their own ethos, culture, human relations
issues- discipline, human rights, welfare, morale and other functional
requirements. In these days of information technology and rapid socio-political
changes, we cannot have a system where the affected parties or the end-users
are not consulted adequately, or where decisions are taken, based on faulty
inputs by non-experts through one-way file notes. The correct system would
require a face-to-face real time collegiate discussion before decisions are
made.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">“Defence of India” involves not just the
military but almost all other institutions of the government; even its
citizenry. However, our Constitution requires the military to work under ‘political
control’ and not ‘bureaucratic control’ under the rules framed decades ago in a
different geo & socio-political milieu. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">As in all democratic nations, our military has
an important role to play in building and protecting the nation. Being treated
as a redundant appendage in governance militates against the basic grain of a
democracy and also hampers execution of its modern day role.<span style="color: #c00000;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">It is a fervent hope that the political
environment would rise and find a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">juste milieu </span></i>ensuring an
equal voice for all stakeholders with the ultimate decision-making power vested
with the political executive as laid down in our Constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">---<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-69392721225775175522018-12-18T20:30:00.000+05:302018-12-18T20:30:12.119+05:30Three articles on disabled soldiers <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Disabled
soldiers are again in the news.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">It
is heartening to see growing awareness on the subject, especially the invisible
disabilities that one cannot see.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">It
is also heartening to see positive statements of the current <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Raksha Mantri </i>that she is committed to
withdrawing all litigation against disabled soldiers from the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">That
said, these three pieces should be read by all of us:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://theprint.in/opinion/indian-army-chief-should-know-that-no-one-feigns-disability/165235/">first one</a></b> is by Ms Ratna Vishwanathan,
a civil servant who has served in the Ministry of Defence. It is ironic that
this comes from a former officer of the civil services.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://scroll.in/article/903366/disability-pension-retired-soldiers-feel-betrayed-as-bjp-challenged-800-cases-despite-promise">second one</a></b> is a well researched piece
by Abhishek Dey for Scroll.in.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/inside-politics/this-vijay-diwas-remember-the-sacrifices-and-do-good-by-our-disabled-soldiers/">third one</a></b> is by Member of Parliament
Mr Rajeev Chandrasekhar for the Times of India, written from the heart. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Please
take out time and go through them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Thanks.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-14069857821226399792018-11-07T14:08:00.000+05:302018-11-07T14:08:16.565+05:30Defence Ministry’s approach to litigation: misdirected, highly adversarial and sadistic (Parts I & II)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(Originally
published for </span><a href="http://www.barandbench.com/"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Bar
& Bench</span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Navdeep
Singh<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This
might be the oddest and the longest opinion piece I have penned, and therefore
it is in two parts, albeit being published simultaneously. And again, like many
times before, I must forewarn, this is written to encourage discussion and
introspection, not to cause commotion, disparage any entity or provide leverage
to pessimistic sentiment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In
the late 1990s/early 2000s, as per the then existing roster of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court, litigation related to service matters of Union of India was
being allotted to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Justice RL Anand</i>, a
strong but humane and sensitive Judge. While hearing a matter of an old
military widow, an observation he made in open Court, not in jest, but in all
seriousness, got stuck in my mind. He said, that if a litigant files a writ
petition stating therein that the sun rises in the east, the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) and the Army would surely file a written statement opposing the
plea and saying that it rises in the west. The Judge was of course referring to
the blind opposition put forth by the defence establishment in all cases with
the singular aim of defeating the other side, sometimes fairly, and at other
times by attempting to play smart. Of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>course, during those days litigation used to end at the High Court,
about a decade later things came to such a pass that the MoD, in its avatar of
an insensitive raging bull, ensured by 2014 that more than 90% of its
litigation in the highest Court of the land comprised appeals filed against
disability benefits to its own maimed and disabled soldiers, at times involving
amounts as little as a few hundred rupees, in matters already well settled by
law. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While
the Army commands utmost respect in our society, and deservedly so, and rightly
remains one of the most venerable institutions in all facets, the track record
of the MoD in litigation shows utter lack of grace and total absence of moral
courage in admitting a fault. The objective solely remains to prove a litigant
wrong and wear him or her out by contesting each and every claim, even if
covered by existing decisions of Constitutional Courts or by the Government’s
own policy, and at times also to subtly inject wrong information in Court
proceedings or attempt to colour or influence the proceedings with one-way
information by keeping it hidden from the litigant. Litigation is treated
highly adversarial as if it is some kind of war being raged against petty
employees which has to be won at any cost! Most of the pleas are opposed out of
ego and most of the appeals are filed out of prestige. So much so, that this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">hook or crook </i>attitude to ‘win’ cases
has, in the past decade or so, assumed alarming proportions, with patently
false information being projected right till the Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
dogged persistence to resist judicial dicta was again visible earlier this week
in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lt
Gen Manomoy Ganguly Vs Union of India</i></b> [Writ Petition (Civil) 980/2018
decided on 29-10-2018] wherein the officer, of the rank of Lieutenant General,
was made to undergo four to five rounds of litigation to get what he could have
been granted in the first go. It is now that the Supreme Court has put an end
to his agony. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Some recorded instances of
unethical stands in Courts<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Even
off hand, many cases come to mind where incorrect submissions are, thankfully,
recorded in the judgments, for posterity, though this is only a minuscule part
of the malaise. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">PK
Kapur Vs Union of India</i></b> (Civil Appeal 4356/2006 decided on 01-02-2007),
where the litigant was appearing in person for extension of certain pensionary
benefits as provided to post-1996 retirees to pre-1996 retirees also, the
Ministry of Defence put across the plea of an Office Memorandum (OM) issued on 3<sup>rd</sup>
February 2000 which restricted the benefits only to post-1996 retirees.
However, the MoD deliberately did not inform the Court that the Department of
Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare had already extended the benefit of the post-1996
OM dated 3<sup>rd</sup> February 2000 to pre-1996 retirees vide a fresh OM
issued on 9<sup>th</sup> Sept 2001. The litigant lost his case and it was only
years later in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">KJS Buttar vs Union of India</i></b> (Civil Appeal 5591/2006 decided on
31-03-2011) that the correct law was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The MoD
however still chose to carry on appealing in cases which were disposed by
various Courts and Tribunals citing the decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">KJS Buttar’s</i> case and ultimately it was a Three Judge Bench in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union
of India Vs Ram Avtar</i></b> (Civil Appeal 418/2012 decided on 10-12-2014) which
settled the law. It is yet another sad story that the MoD has again filed a
similar appeal in the already well settled subject as recently as in July 2018.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Secretary
MoD Vs Ajeet Singh Vs Union of India</i></b> (Civil Appeal 16/2003 decided on
06-05-2009) the MoD informed the Supreme Court, which is again recorded in the
order, that a minimum of ten years of service is required to earn a disability
pension, while the truth is that there is no minimum qualifying service
required for the said pension and a disabled soldier with even a single day of
service is entitled to the same. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bhola
Singh Vs Union of India</i></b> (Civil Appeal 4486/2002 decided on 10-10-2010),
the MoD informed the Supreme Court that there is a requirement of minimum 15
years of service to earn the “Service Element” of Disability Pension. While
doing so, it projected outdated Regulations before the Court and also wrongly
cited the regulation for “Service Pension” rather than “Service Element of
Disability Pension” while in reality the minimum service requirement for
Service Element stood abrogated from 1<sup>st</sup> January 1973. The same
trick by citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bhola Singh’s</i>
decision was sought to be applied in another bunch matter being heard by the
same presiding Judge in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union of India Vs Sinchetty Satyanarayan</i></b>
(Special Leave Petition 20868/2009 decided on 23-02-2012) but since this time there
were multiple lawyers available to rebut the untruth, the MoD quietly withdrew
its appeals and conceded the matter when caught on the wrong foot in the
Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union
of India Vs Karan Singh</i></b> (Special Leave Petition 37928/2012 decided on
10-02-2014), the MoD filed an appeal in a particular matter of a disabled
soldier when the Defence Minister had already directed the withdrawal of such
appeals through an explicit instruction. When this was pointed out in the Court
by the counsel for the disabled soldier, the appeal was quietly withdrawn by
the MoD.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Air
Vice Marshal Harish Masand Vs Union of India</i></b> [<span style="background: white; color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">119 (2005) DLT 152</span> decided
on 08-11-2004] wherein the Delhi High Court was dealing with the promotion of
senior officers of the Air Force, there was a crude attempt to mislead and
misguide the judicial process by filing false affidavits. The Delhi High Court
thus observed: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“<span style="background: white; color: black;">If one carefully goes through the note,
the least we can observe is that at such highest level instead of placing the
truth, ways and means were devised by XXXXX and others who were present in the
meeting to conceal the truth. If this could happen at that level, how the rule
of law and faith of the Court in the affidavits filed by the Government would
survive. We are shocked that ways and means were devised by an officer of the
rank of Air Marshal to hide from the Court what was against the Air
Headquarters. It was a fit case where we would have ordered appropriate actions
to be taken against XXXXX, however, we were told that he has retired in
September this year. Therefore, we do not contemplate any action”. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Further observing the machinations, the Court recorded:
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“What affidavit to be filed in the High Court in
the present case, how Court should be misled, how truth should not come before
the Court, ingenuity on the part of Air Headquarters to deny justice to the
petitioner would not have been unrevealed but for a note recorded by XXXXX,
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course, such attempts have since been made
multiple times, especially in cases involving promotions of officers, and have
not been appreciated by Courts and tribunals. </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Amar
Chand Suhag Vs Union of India</i></b> (Civil Writ Petition 5041/2004 decided on
11-08-2006), the MoD again projected an outdated regulation to deny benefits to
a disabled soldier. When the Court was apprised of the reality, the MoD was
fined by the Punjab & Haryana High Court which also recorded the following
in the order- <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“But we are constrained to observe that the
respondents while reproducing the relevant legal provision pertaining to the
assessment of disability pension have concealed the Regulations”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Needless to state,
the concealment in this case was not by the MoD <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">per se</i> but by the Regimental Records Office of the Army.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In
yet another shocking case of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lt Col RK Rai Vs Union of India</i></b>
(Civil Appeal 3101/2015 decided on 16-02-2018), the MoD chose to contest a case
against grant of disability benefits to a disabled officer who had sought
premature retirement from the Army despite the fact that the Govt itself had
issued a letter on 19-05-2017 authorising disability pension to such voluntary retirees.
Though the said letter is fully discussed in the final order of the Court, it
is beyond comprehension why the same was contested and not conceded at the
outset or even declared infructuous when it was now fully covered by Government’s
own policy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union
of India Vs Balbir Singh</i></b> (Civil Appeal D 4893/2018 decided on
09-03-2018), the MoD appealed in matters concerning soldiers of the lower ranks
which had already been decided by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Supreme
Court imposed costs of Rs One Lac and observed- <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“<span style="color: #00000a; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">This appeal was filed well after several similar matters were dismissed
by this Court. We cannot appreciate the conduct of the Union of India in this regard
of filing civil appeals/special leave petitions after the issue has been
concluded by this Court. This is unnecessarily adding to the burden of the
Justice Delivery Systems for which the Union of India must take full
responsibility.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Yet
again, recently, in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union of India Vs Prithvi Singh</i></b> (Civil Appeal D 8754/2018
decided on 25-04-2018), the Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rupees One Lac on
the Union of India for repeatedly filing appeals in matters finally settled by
the High Court and affirmed thereafter by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court
observed- <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“The
couldn’t-care-less and insouciant attitude of the Union of India with regard to
litigation, particularly in the Supreme Court, has gone a little too far as
this case illustrates....The Union of India must appreciate that by pursuing
frivolous or infructuous cases, it is adding to the burden of this Court and
collaterally harming other litigants by delaying hearing of their cases through
the sheer volume of numbers. If the Union of India cares little for the justice
delivery system, it should at least display some concern for litigants, many of
whom have to spend a small fortune in litigating in the Supreme Court...To make
matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India has engaged 10 lawyers,
including an Additional Solicitor General and a Senior Advocate! This is as per
the appearance slip submitted to the Registry of this Court. In other words,
the Union of India has created a huge financial liability by engaging so many
lawyers for an appeal whose fate can be easily imagined on the basis of
existing orders of dismissal in similar cases. Yet the Union of India is
increasing its liability and asking the taxpayers to bear an avoidable
financial burden for the misadventure...To say the least, this is an extremely
unfortunate situation of unnecessary and avoidable burdening of this Court
through frivolous litigation which calls for yet another reminder through the
imposition of costs on the Union of India while dismissing this appeal. We hope
that someday some sense, if not better sense, will prevail on the Union of
India with regard to the formulation of a realistic and meaningful National
Litigation Policy and what it calls ‘ease of doing business’, which can, if
faithfully implemented benefit litigants across the country.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Attitudinal Problem, putting
pressure on officers dealing with litigation and getting personally involved
with cases<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In a
Committee of Experts constituted by the Raksha Mantri in 2015 on sentiment
expressed by none less than the Prime Minister to reduce litigation, especially
appeals filed by the Government, of which even this author was a member, we
were perplexed when many officers came to us with presentations portraying the methods
of filing ‘faster appeals’ rather than methods to reduce appeals. Of course,
this militated against the very reason why the Committee was constituted. We
had to repeatedly question and counsel many officers, while recording in so
many words, that litigation was not a war or a sport that they had to score a ‘win’.
We also had to regrettably record in the Report as to how contemptuous language
was used against the judiciary by certain elements and how suggestions were
made to overreach Courts. All this reflects a strange kind of arrogance which
is unacceptable in a democracy. Shockingly, proposals were made before the
Committee that members of the judiciary dealing with matters of the Armed
Forces should be ‘sensitised’ and there should be a consultative mechanism
between the executive authorities and Members of the judiciary. Such statements
clearly point out to the lack of basic understanding of the concept of
separation of powers and that persons in key appointments feel that judiciary
functions like some <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sarkari</i> office
where things are done by hobnobbing, interaction, liaison and overreach. It is
not even understood by the system, it seems, that within a courtroom, both
parties are to present their cases and the bench is supposed to render decision
as per law. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As
stated in the beginning, it is also very frightening to see the total lack of
grace in accepting a wrong in Courts. While officers of many departments
including the Ministry of Home Affairs in parallel litigation, have no qualms
in conceding when a particular case is covered by existing case law or even
admitting any wrong committed, this trait is rarely seen in the case of MoD or
the defence services though lot is said about the virtue of ‘moral courage’ in
the military milieu. So much so that even senior officers get personally involved
in innocuous litigation putting pressure on young officers, including those of
the Judge Advocate General’s Branch (JAG) with phone calls, signals and what
not! Undue pressure is exerted to ‘win cases’ and officers are questioned when
a case is ‘lost’, not realising that in every litigation, one party has to win
and the other has to lose and this is an everyday affair in Courts all over the
nation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This
undue pressure also encourages young officers dealing with litigation to show
over-enthusiasm and at times, over-smartness, which might help in the short run
but not in the longer race. Does it behove senior appointments in the military
set-up getting intimately intertwined with proceedings of matters on
promotions, pensions, minor disciplinary issues, welfare polices etc? Is that
the official mandate? Should that be the focus? Aren’t there other real
‘military’ issues to look after? No real battles to fight? While legal officers
of other departments including the uniformed services of the Home Ministry act
in an autonomous manner in their functioning with full authority to take a
stand or decision on behalf of the system, the representatives of the military,
on the other hand, are always terrified of their chain of command. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Government and its entities are supposed
to be faceless organisations and there is no reason to get personally involved
or individually entangled in cases out of administrative egotism. This fleeting
happiness of winning a point by over-smartness such as maintaining ‘shadow
files’ or ante-dating documents, creating documents or asking counsel to change
legal opinions also might earn one some brownie points and impress certain
bosses but the damage caused by these stunts to the institution, its reputation
and the morale of soldiers, veterans and military widows is permanent and
irreparable. You never know when the shoe shifts to the other foot!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In
fact, the attitude of the system in decrying litigants and using accusatory
language was very nicely preserved by the Delhi High Court in one of the cases,
wherein it observed:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“...It is also necessary to record here, with
some regret, that the pleadings of the Army, in this case, were combative and
adversarial. References to the petitioner and XXXXX more often than not had an
accusatory note. At no point of time does the Army appear to have thought it
appropriate, as an institution, to extend sympathy...Would it then have
mattered if the Army had officially said "Sorry". It is time for all
of everyone to move forward- beyond egos, beyond perceptions of
"propriety" (whatever that means in such cases) and as institutions,
to reach out to those with hurt feelings. Doing that shows humaneness and
courage; stony silence is not machismo. It is hoped that this is a wake-up call
for the Army to take remedial measures in such cases...”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Trying to override judiciousness
by creating an unreal noise in the name of ‘national security’<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A strange kind of behaviour
in litigation is also displayed in routine matters such as promotions when
officers representing the establishment try to overawe the Court and the litigant
by behaving as if they are dealing with nuclear secrets of the State. This
attitude, which was never found acceptable in the High Courts, has increased
after the inception of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). Officers in uniform,
representing the establishment, try to pass on papers in ‘sealed covers’ to the
bench to provide a one-sided story to any litigation. Sadly, while the High
Courts tend to rebuke such behaviour, this practice has become routine in some
of the benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal. In fact, the aim of this practice
is very simple, that is, to steal a march over the litigant by overplaying
certain documents while underplaying others, since the litigant then has no possible
way to rebut what has been placed before a bench. There have been moments
wherein in the open Courtroom, officers in uniform have walked up to the bench
literally to show documents at the back of the litigant. What image or
perception would this project to the litigant or others present in the Court?
In the judicial system of a democracy, the petitioner is the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dominus litis</i>, but it seems it’s the
other way round in military litigation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">What is brazenly incorrect
in encouragement of this system also is that while transparency laws are now
all encompassing with even cabinet notes open to public scrutiny, here it is
attempted to convey to the judicial system as if heavens would fall if a
particular case is decided in favour of a particular individual. Noting this
behaviour, the Chandigarh Bench of the AFT in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brig Dinkar Adeeb Vs Union of
India</i></b> (OA 2948/2013 decided on 30-08-2013, later upheld by the Supreme
Court) had deprecated the conduct of the Military Secretary’s branch in trying
to pass on a file to the bench without showing the same to the Petitioner after
the case had been argued, and it was stated by the bench that “no such attempt
should have been made”. It is not understood as to how can administrative or
promotion matters be shrouded in secrecy? At best, the names of other officers
in such proceedings can be blurred or blocked and the rest of the papers can be
placed on record. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Courts usually only accept
documents in sealed cover wherein the security of the nation is involved or if
it’s a case with ramifications on relations with foreign powers or an issue
involving fiduciary relationship such as contracts etc. This attitude also recently
found disfavour with the Supreme Court in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hav Sham Dass D Vs Union of India</i></b>
(Criminal Appeal D 14045/2018 decided on 12-07-2018) wherein the soldier’s
services were terminated however he was not allowed to peruse the documents
related to his termination on the pretext of ‘national security’. This is what
the Supreme Court observed on the matter: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 5.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“<span style="color: black;">We
may only clarify that every single relevant document pertaining to the
appellant’s termination will be allowed to be inspected as per the Rule. We
make it clear that <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">no document shall be
allowed to be denied to the appellant on the</b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>so-called</u> ground of national security.</b>” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 5.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Strangely
despite multiple decisions by the Central Information Commission and the High
Courts, the ‘opinion and findings’ rendered against delinquent employees are
not passed on them in the name of confidentiality. Meaning thereby, the
employee must not know what has been found against him/her and on what basis
thereby leaving the employee defenceless and groping in the dark.
Interestingly, basing disciplinary action on such a faux cloak of secrecy was
shattered by the Supreme Court last week in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union of India Vs Col AD
Nargolkar</i></b> (Civil Appeal 10686/2018 decided on 24-10-2018) wherein the
Supreme Court noted- <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 5.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“To top it all,
while giving the aforesaid findings, Court of Inquiry (COI) has referred to the
'discreet inquiry' which had found the allegations to be correct. At the same
time, this discreet inquiry was not proved before the COI. We fail to
understand as to how it could become the basis of findings of the COI when no
opportunity was given to the Officer to meet the same.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 5.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Clearly from the
looks of what has been in vogue, Courts should be extremely slow in taking the
word of certain instrumentalities of the State on face value. It must however
be emphatically stated that it is not the Counsel representing the Union who
might be at fault, since the lawyers too, mostly, are kept in dark of the
reality of it all. In my personal opinion, such transgressions should not be
let off lightly by Courts and tribunals merely because the other side presents
itself to be hallowed since it deals with national security. Absolutely not.
Organisations dealing with the defence of the nation must be held to even
greater probity and judiciousness since injustice itself is the anti-thesis of
discipline. No entity must be allowed to get away with the thought that certain
organisations hold a right to some special privilege, much less the privilege
to misguide. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Incorrect litigation data to
Ministry of Law and Justice<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Interestingly,
the jugglery is not restricted to own rank and file, elements of the MoD even
have the propensity to confuse their own political bosses and also other
ministries. In data provided to the Law Ministry, the MoD reported pendency of
only 3433 cases relating to the said ministry, the MoD also reported zero
contempt matters. The Data is still available on the official Law Ministry
website, </span><a href="http://doj.gov.in/page/action-plan-reduce-government-litigation"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">See
Slide No 6</span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">. The truth however is that more than 15000 cases were pending
in the AFT alone which </span><a href="http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Tribunal%20Authorities/SC%20Report-%20Tribunals%20Bill,%202014.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">can
be seen on Page 21 of a Parliamentary Committee Report</span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">. Moreover,
as on 01-07-2015, about 4390 applications for contempt or execution of orders
were pending in the Chandigarh Bench of the AFT alone and the number of
contempt or execution applications in other benches, the High Courts and the
Supreme Court would be in addition. The data of pendency in the Armed Forces
Tribunal in July 2018 was about 17000. Hence, if even the Ministry of Law &
Justice can be at the receiving end of manipulation by some mandarins of MoD,
what can a common litigant expect? While the Ministry of Law & Justice
lists the MoD as the fifth highest litigant based upon the imperfect data
provided by it, the fact remains that in service matters, it is in reality the
highest litigant since Ministries of Finance and Railways are burdened by tax
related litigation/appeals and accident claims respectively over which they
have no control. Moreover, while the MoD is known to file appeals in the Supreme
Court in matters involving even a few thousand of rupees (if not hundreds), the
Ministry of Finance admirably does not appeal unless the matter is worth Rupees
One Crore. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While
the Supreme Court has called for the government and its instrumentalities
always to be responsible litigants, and there is change in the last decade or
so as far as many central government departments are concerned, the same has
had no effect on military litigation. The attitude is a reminder of the
following words on litigation induced by government agencies by the Supreme
Court in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs Mohan Lal</i></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2010) 1 SCC 512:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">“4...They cannot raise frivolous and
unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They cannot
behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they
resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when
their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong
acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no
explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to
the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in
regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted
litigation requires to be corrected.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">5. This Court has repeatedly expressed
the view that the governments and statutory authorities should be model or
ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical
(but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice....<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">6. Unwarranted litigation by
governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general
baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(i) All claims against the
government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be
resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-right: 40.2pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">(ii) If taking a decision on an issue
could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the
aggrieved party approach the Court and secures a decision....”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The Government has a huge task at hand. It
must not trust what is put up to the political executive by way of file notings
from below, blindly. Notes are prepared so as to create a bias in the minds of
the competent authorities thereby making wise decision-making an uphill task.
The only way to resolve this quandary is to ensure a well-rounded system of
consultation with all stake-holders and selected affected parties. In absence
of the same, the decision-makers would continue to remain trapped in
echo-chambers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">While we, the ones dealing with military litigation,
shall remain, waiting for Godot!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm; padding: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Original links @ <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Bar and Bench</b>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://barandbench.com/defence-ministry-approach-to-litigation-misdirected-highly-adversarial-and-sadistic-part-i/"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Part I</span></b></a><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://barandbench.com/defence-ministry-approach-to-litigation-misdirected-highly-adversarial-and-sadistic-part-ii/"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Part II</span></b></a><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Major
Navdeep Singh is a practicing lawyer at the Punjab & Haryana High Court,
the founding President of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association at
Chandigarh,<i> </i><em><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Member of the </span></em><em><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">International Society for
Military Law</span></em><em><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> and the </span></em><em><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Law of War</span></em><em><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal;"> at Brussels and author of ‘Maimed by the System’.</span></em></span><i style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-58758990250278335282018-10-26T18:59:00.000+05:302018-10-26T18:59:06.260+05:30The implication of the adultery ruling of the Supreme Court on the military<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I write on the implication of the Supreme Court ruling on adultery on the military for <a href="https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/inspite-of-decriminalisation-of-adultery-it-continues-to-be-punished-by-the-military"><b><i>The Quint:</i></b></a></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">In wake of decriminalisation of the offence
of adultery by the Supreme Court of India yesterday, many voices emerged
questioning the usage of the term <i>stealing
the affection of a brother officer’s wife</i> commonly used in the military. In
fact, the decision might have more implications in the defence services than
the general society since it is in the former that the charge of adultery is
mostly pressed into service and has led to convictions and not the latter. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The term does sound archaic, and irrespective
of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, should have been dumped long ago.
However it must be kept in mind that complications in a military set-up may
just not arise out of adultery <i>per se</i>
but due to a variety of other situations which might have an impact on military
life and discipline and hence the defence services can still initiate action
against its personnel under Section 45 of the Army Act (unbecoming conduct) or
Section 63 (violation of good order and discipline) and parallel provisions of
the Navy and the Air Force, not for adultery but for other complexities arising
out of it if resulting in any disruption or difficulties in the aspect of
employment of the individual. But one thing is clear, Section 497 which was the
source of power of the ‘stealing’ terminology, now cannot be invoked more so in
view of the fact that the Supreme Court has rightly observed that women cannot
be treated as chattel, personal possession or property. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The issue, insofar it relates to the
military, has been subjected to judicial scrutiny in recent times. In 2014, the
Mumbai Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal had set aside the dismissal of a
Naval Commander initiated by the Navy on the pretext of unbecoming conduct
arising out of adultery and for exchanging lewd messages with a foreigner. The
Government had challenged the verdict but the Supreme Court in 2015 upheld the
reinstatement of the officer in service. The exchange in Court, between the
then Attorney General, Mukul Rohtagi, and the bench, as reported by <a href="http://www.telegraphindia.com/india/affair-not-national-affair/cid/1510637">TheTelegraph, makes interesting reading</a>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Further, in 2016, the Kolkata bench of the
Armed Forces Tribunal comprising Justice Amar Saran (Retd) and Lt Gen Gautam
Moorthy (Retd), had made interesting observations on the subject which merit
reproduction:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><i>“...the wordings ‘stealing the affection of a
wife of a brother officer’ smack of patriarchy and punctilious mindset. While
certainly extra marital relations should not only be discouraged and
disapproved in no uncertain terms, to hold only one party responsible, that is,
the male and not the female who may be as educated, as mature, even older and
senior than the male is reflective of a pre-disposed and biased mindset that
also assumes that the wife of a brother officer is the property or chattel of
the male and not an independent person in her own right who has the freedom to
choose to live her life on her own terms. It does not take into account that in
a marriage in the 21st century, a well qualified, educated wife especially one
in the Services and from a cosmopolitan background who holds the same rank as
her husband does have a mind of her own, a free will of her own, may pursue a
path, however abhorrent and objectionable to her husband, including having an
affair......While not condoning extra marital relationships, we must, at the
same time, reflect upon the changing mores of our society. With women joining
the Armed Forces in large numbers, working closely and socialising with their
male counterparts, it is unreasonable to expect that the Armed Forces would be
immune to social changes in relationships between the two sexes, aided in no
small measure by rapidly advancing technology. While such issues adversely
impact on unit cohesion and ethos of the Services and should be rightly
discouraged, the time has come when aspects such as unfortunate break ups of
existing marital relationships, consensual relationships with others and
infidelity should not be viewed so seriously as to lead to the dismissal or
even graver punishments that the IPC and statutory Acts of the Army, Navy and
Air Force provide for.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The appeal filed by the Central Government in
the above case was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The military cannot be immune to change, the
Supreme Court has not offered a moral judgement or condonation or deprecation
of adultery but has merely stated that while it may have civil connotations, it
cannot be a criminal offence. In my view, the same must also apply to the
situation in the military if the matter is consensual and between two
individuals without implication on service life. The exception to this
proposition however is that in case it impinges upon discipline or other
aspects intertwined with life in the military, then it shall always remain open
to action under Sections 45 or 63 whenever it impacts such service parameters. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The military community will self-adjust to
changing times, this churning and the interpretation of law, as always<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-34111252290507906942018-09-29T08:57:00.002+05:302018-09-29T08:58:12.389+05:30Resisting provocation and retaining moral edge- my oped with Gen Hasnain today<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;">General
Hasnain and I discuss the requirement of strict adherence to human rights by the
military even while operating under stressful conditions. The co-authored piece
has appeared in </span><i style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/why-army-can-t-lose-moral-edge/660346.html">The Tribune</a></i><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> today.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Indian Army- Resisting
provocation and retaining moral edge<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Circulation of pictures of a terrorist’s
corpse is unmilitary <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Maj Navdeep Singh <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Both
authors of this piece were targets of messages laced with scorn on twitter
recently when we steadfastly opposed the circulation of an image of a civilian
clicking a picture with the corpse of a terrorist in the backdrop, and also of
what seemed like the dragging of dead bodies of the same terrorist just after
an operation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To
put the record straight, the first picture was utterly detestable and the
second was perhaps articulated out of context after culmination of a military
operation subsequent to which the dead body of the terrorist had been tied by a
rope and flipped to ensure the disposal of explosive which could put troops to
risk. On opposition to the circulation of the pictures, we were, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter alia</i>, informed by self-declared
experts that the dragging of the body as seen in the picture was a Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) in counter-insurgency operations and also that terrorists
deserved no mercy. Of course the commentators forgot in the bargain, that
firstly, the picture was not that of the actual SOP being carried out since the
same is carried out by a rope at least 30 feet long, and secondly, a dead body
ceases to be that of an enemy or a terrorist and is never mistreated, unless we
are competing in barbarism with a neighbour of ours. Needless to state, in this
case too, the body may not have been mistreated but the presence of civilians
with cameras in such a zone is worrisome. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So
why do we feel such pictures should not be circulated? If we dig deep into the
issue, such actions can have deleterious repercussions. To begin with, such
pictures are bound to be used by inimical elements to spread misinformation
about our forces thereby depicting them in less than favourable light. Let us
not forget that these are times of psychological-operations where messing with
the minds of people and injecting hatred is a more potent tool than the gun. We
just cannot afford to be an enabling device for the enemy in this dastardly
environment. Such pictures, especially the one with a civilian with a corpse,
can also lead to a vicious tit-for-tat cycle of violence with brutal
photographs and videos being circulated which has been seen elsewhere in the
world and is best avoided. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">On
the dignity of bodies of terrorists, many have responded with the oft repeated
refrain that “terrorists have no Human Rights”. This is a dangerous
proposition. “Human Rights” is not a dirty word. It regulates our existence and
acts as a shield towards misuse of power by any person in authority. What we
have always clamoured for, however, is a balance and equal respect for the
rights of the men and women in uniform. Had there been an absence of rule of
law, the logic professed for terrorists could well be extended to any criminal
or perceived criminal thereby justifying mob mentality. In fact, the Indian
Army was one of the first armies to have incorporated Human Rights training and
monitoring and it would also be in the fitness of things if the military,
institutionally rising above any popular sentiment, corrects the perception on
social media when it threatens our basic ethos. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
Indian Army has always guarded against desecration of bodies. An apt example is
of Kargil wherein, in the middle of the battle, the bodies of the enemy were
not only handed over to Pakistan but also saluted by our troops. True, those
were bodies of enemy combatants and a direct parallel with terrorists may not
be apposite, however let us not forget that this happened despite the most unsoldierly
conduct on the body of Late Captain Saurabh Kalia. Some provided examples to us
as to how other nations dealt with such situations. But it may come as a
surprise to many that most democracies are very sensitive to this subject.
Osama Bin Laden’s body was buried-at-sea by the Americans and mistreatment of
bodies is akin to a war crime for them. Contrary to popular perception, Israel absolutely
forbids disrespect to dead bodies and professes very strict rules of
engagement, including prohibition of usage of human shields and maltreatment of
bodies which were banned by its Apex Court and dutifully followed by the Israel
Defence Forces. In Nigeria, Sierra Leone and South Africa, maltreatment of
bodies is a war crime. Even many other African States which have faced gruesome
ethnic violence now provide for protection of dead bodies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
battle zone is not mathematical. There would be a variety of situations which
would require split-second decisions. Therefore imposing a zero-error
environment might result in inhibiting the initiative of troops. However, there
are aspects where there is no compromise. The true mettle of a soldier only
comes to fore under stressful situations where he or she must not stray from
military values. While the Indian Army would be ruthless in its operations
thwarting terrorism, it would also be the most correct in following the rule of
law, the laid down procedures, including respect to the dead. The scrupulous adherence
to these ingrained principles is why the Indian Army has retained its
reputation. The unnecessary chest-thumping on social media by seemingly
bloodthirsty warriors who have not gone beyond video games in real life militates
against the ethos of our military and would continue to be treated with the
contempt it deserves. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Despite
extreme provocations, we cannot be like the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">other
side</i> and that is the reason why the Indian Army retains its moral edge, and
continues to prevail. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; line-height: 115%; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm; padding: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; line-height: 115%; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm; padding: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain is the former
General Officer Commanding of the 15 Corps at Srinagar and former Military
Secretary. <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Maj Navdeep Singh is an Advocate at the
Punjab & Haryana High Court and founding President of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Bar Association. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-37815449650077667072018-09-08T12:48:00.000+05:302018-09-08T12:48:07.299+05:30Implications on the Indian Military: The decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Section 377 IPC<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">EXPLAINER<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
implication of the ruling on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the
Indian Military<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">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:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>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. <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>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.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>Disgraceful
conduct of a cruel or indecent kind would continue to remain an offence under
Section 46(a) AA. <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>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. </i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-80443919945399573232018-08-06T19:19:00.002+05:302018-08-06T19:23:19.177+05:30My book, Maimed by the System (2018) available at 33% discount till 15th August <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My book, Maimed by the System (2018), would be available at 33% discount till Independence Day, 15th August, 2018 at </span><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.notionpress.com%2Fread%2Fmaimed-by-the-system&h=AT3ES8mweHWkkutkbqQ7RJawrghADFXKnYeJFWXZVoBGYoASZ36PMWeEfZBYZkFA7NCevCeozADhQ9DtPjZKssxedBsw3wPCLIXkB9wirAO_lWG4XftlAEO5lJghh4jdCPlwY_nZnEs1SJb3Ug" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">www.notionpress.com/read/maimed-by-the-system</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: start;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Use discount coupon- HUMANITY</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUGVe09XxJBcMBOGKPReMZTS7L8BgnJYfl4n-PepJ_FscJ45_hvbg4xNfylDq2AsN17hTqsiM23qTv7a9OlKN7yt1qssTNKZPDzxrgdJd-T0Qvrk529_2vgTT0D6_K4LSA2dr3_x85kgoJ/s1600/August+2018+discount.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="972" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUGVe09XxJBcMBOGKPReMZTS7L8BgnJYfl4n-PepJ_FscJ45_hvbg4xNfylDq2AsN17hTqsiM23qTv7a9OlKN7yt1qssTNKZPDzxrgdJd-T0Qvrk529_2vgTT0D6_K4LSA2dr3_x85kgoJ/s640/August+2018+discount.jpg" width="387" /></a></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-91552682026854371112018-07-26T14:42:00.001+05:302018-07-26T14:43:11.849+05:30My interview to All India Radio<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/e1oI8Op8AHc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e1oI8Op8AHc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>All India Radio</i> interviewed me early morning today on Kargil, disabled soldiers, the effect of stress & strain of military service on health, welfare of soldiers, and beyond....</span></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">May lend an ear if inclined, or interested.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
Thanks. </div>
</span></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-53928105274511836522018-07-17T19:39:00.000+05:302018-07-17T19:39:14.015+05:30My talk at TEDx where I attempt to clear some myths on the military <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZLS_z2pzs3E/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZLS_z2pzs3E?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-15781419263821807962018-06-26T12:25:00.000+05:302018-06-26T12:27:54.641+05:30Why does India need its own Farr and Flipper to undo miscarriage of military justice!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My piece on military injustice, also published @ <a href="https://medium.com/@navdeepsingh.india/why-we-need-our-farr-and-flipper-to-undo-miscarriage-of-military-injustice-a87c62710163">Medium</a>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Not many in India would have
heard about a young British soldier called <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Private Harry Farr</b>. Not many would also have heard about the ‘shot
at dawn’ memorial at Staffordshire in the United Kingdom.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Then is the story of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Lieutenant Henry O Flipper</b> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Why
do I write this.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Two glaring examples come to
my mind:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
Samba Spy Case<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When
no evidence was found by Court Martial against some personnel, their services
were administratively terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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 <a href="https://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1804/18041170.htm" target="_blank">as
were other aspects of the case</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
curious case of Brig Pritam Singh<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In <a href="https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/shooting-straight/a-hero-disowned-by-the-nation-deserves-pardon/" target="_blank">one of his recent articles</a>, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Bigadier Pritam Singh died
in Punjab, unsung.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Restoring
the Clock.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Will we have our Farr and
Flipper moment in India?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Time will tell.</span></div>
</div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1503293844377013031.post-33086485776959100262018-06-15T13:08:00.001+05:302018-06-15T13:08:44.525+05:30Op-ed: Making Short Service Commission attractive in the military<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">My <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-military-needs-short-service-2623975">op-ed for DNA</a> 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-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Making
Short Service Commission </span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">attractive in the military<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">India Needs Short Service<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Major
Navdeep Singh<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Nice aim, wrong route. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Only time would tell. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
author is an Advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and writes on law,
public policy and military related issues. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br /></div>
Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481215977936848477noreply@blogger.com0