SC: Non-compliance of Rule 180 Army Rules no ground to annul Court Martial once trial concluded—AFT exceeded jurisdiction in ordering de novo inquiry

Case Name: Union of India & Others v. Ex. No. 3192684 W. Sep. Virendra Kumar
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 07, 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 9267 of 2019 (Diary No. 10621 of 2018)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Held: The Supreme Court held that while Rule 180 of the Army Rules mandates participation rights when an inquiry affects an officer’s character or reputation, failure to follow Rule 180 at Court of Inquiry stage does not vitiate a subsequent full-fledged General Court Martial trial. The Armed Forces Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 16 of the AFT Act, 2007 to remit the case to the stage of Court of Inquiry; its re-trial power is limited and cannot be invoked on mere procedural irregularities.

Summary: The respondent soldier was tried by General Court Martial for murder under Section 302 IPC read with the Army Act, convicted, sentenced to life imprisonment, and dismissed from service. His statutory complaint was rejected. The Armed Forces Tribunal set aside the conviction, holding violation of Rule 180 (denial of presence during Court of Inquiry witness statements) vitiated the trial, and remanded for de novo proceedings. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed precedent (Prithi Pal Singh Bedi, Major G.S. Sodhi, Major A. Hussain, Sanjay Jethi) and concluded that Court of Inquiry is fact-finding only; irregularities there cannot nullify a conviction unless prejudice is shown. The respondent never raised Rule 180 violation during framing of charges, summary of evidence, or trial. The Tribunal’s order exceeded its powers under Section 16 AFT Act.

Decision: Appeal allowed. Tribunal’s order set aside. Matter remanded back to AFT to decide on merits without treating non-compliance of Rule 180 as fatal. Respondent not to undergo further imprisonment as he had already served more than 10 years.