Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Master Chief Petty Officer of the Indian Navy challenging the constitutionality of Regulation 178(3) of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965, which declares a prosecutor a competent witness in court-martial proceedings. The Court held that the provision did not violate the right to a fair trial under Article 21, as Article 33 of the Constitution authorises Parliament to restrict or abrogate fundamental rights for members of the Armed Forces to ensure discipline. It also held that while the investigating officer acting as prosecutor raised fairness concerns, the Navy Act and Regulations constituted a self-contained code, and the petitioner’s challenge could not be sustained
.
Facts
The petitioner, a Navy personnel with over 30 years of service, was tried by a General Court-Martial (GCM) on multiple charges of cheating Naval officers of substantial sums of money and forging Military Receipts (MROs). He was alleged to have dishonestly induced officers to transfer amounts exceeding ₹4.5 lakhs into his personal bank account under the pretext of depositing unspent travel duty allowances back to the Government, while forging records to cover misappropriation.
During the GCM trial, the petitioner alleged procedural improprieties, including bias, denial of defence witness examination, and lack of access to material evidence. Importantly, he challenged the appointment of the investigating officer as prosecutor, and the constitutionality of Regulation 178(3), which permits prosecutors to be competent witnesses.
The petitioner invoked Article 226 jurisdiction of the High Court, seeking a declaration that Regulation 178(3) was unconstitutional as violative of criminal jurisprudence and natural justice, and prayed that the Court-Martial proceedings be set aside
.
Issues
- Whether Regulation 178(3) of the Navy Regulations, which permits a prosecutor to act as a witness, is unconstitutional as violative of Article 21 and principles of fair trial.
- Whether the investigating officer could simultaneously act as prosecutor in the petitioner’s court-martial under Regulation 163(1).
- Whether the High Court could intervene in court-martial proceedings in light of Article 33 of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that appointing the investigating officer as prosecutor and permitting him to testify as a witness violated the right to a fair trial under Article 21. Relying on Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P. (2008), he submitted that a fair trial requires an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor, and an atmosphere of judicial calm.
He further contended that the roles of prosecutor and investigating officer are distinct and cannot be merged, citing R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu (2000) and Tarsem Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022). He argued that Regulation 178(3) conflicted with the basic structure of criminal jurisprudence, and therefore should be struck down as unconstitutional.
He also cited Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (2023) to argue that High Courts retain jurisdiction under Article 226 to judicially review court-martial proceedings where fundamental rights are violated
.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India opposed the petition, contending that Regulation 178(3) was enacted pursuant to Article 33 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate fundamental rights for Armed Forces personnel to maintain discipline.
Relying on Ram Sarup v. Union of India (1965), Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India (1982), and R. Viswan v. Union of India (1983), it was submitted that provisions of the Army, Navy and Air Force Acts enjoy constitutional protection even if they restrict fundamental rights.
The respondents further argued that the investigating officer had 15 years of experience in logistics and finance and was appointed as the “most suitable person” under Regulation 163(1). They emphasised that the petitioner himself sought to summon the prosecutor as a witness during trial, which estopped him from challenging his competency. It was also argued that court-martial procedures are special in nature and distinct from trials under the CrPC, and that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner since cross-examination of the prosecutor was allowed
.
Analysis of the Law
The Court began by affirming that the Navy Act, 1957 and the Navy Regulations constitute a self-sustained code, prescribing procedures for investigation and trial of offences committed by naval personnel.
It noted that Regulation 178(3), which allows a prosecutor to be a competent witness, did not by itself negate the right to a fair trial. The Court drew upon Section 118 of the Evidence Act, which recognises competency of a witness as a matter of legal ability to testify, while credibility is subject to judicial assessment.
The Court invoked Article 33 of the Constitution, which expressly empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate fundamental rights of armed forces members to ensure discipline. It relied heavily on Ram Sarup, Prithi Pal Singh Bedi, and Viswan to conclude that restrictions imposed by the Navy Act and Regulations on fair trial rights were constitutionally valid, as they flowed from Article 33.
The Court also noted precedents such as Seth Biradh Mal v. Sethani Prabhavati Kunwar (1939 PC) and Lodd Govindoss Krishnadoss v. Rukmani Bhai (1916 Mad HC), which held that even counsel could testify in cases where necessary.
Thus, Regulation 178(3) was held to be neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional
.
Precedent Analysis
- Ram Sarup v. Union of India (1965, SC) — Upheld Army Act provisions restricting fundamental rights under Article 33.
- Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India (1982, SC) — Clarified that trial procedures under military laws stand modified by Article 33.
- R. Viswan v. Union of India (1983, SC) — Validated restrictions on free speech rights of armed forces.
- Ex-Flt Lt. G.S. Bajwa (2003, SC) — Held that fundamental rights of defence personnel can be curtailed by law under Article 33.
- Parashotam Dass (2023, SC) — Reaffirmed that High Courts can judicially review court-martial proceedings where fundamental rights violations exist.
- Motilal Saraf v. Union of India (2007, SC) and Nirmal Singh Kahlon (2009, SC)* — Emphasised fair trial as part of Article 21.
- Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (2019, SC) — Reiterated that criminal procedure must be “just, fair and reasonable” post-Maneka Gandhi.
These cases together clarified that while fair trial rights are fundamental, Parliament can, through military statutes, impose limitations under Article 33.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that fairness in military trials cannot be measured strictly by standards under the CrPC, as the Navy Act is a special law designed to ensure discipline. It emphasised that while it may be undesirable for an investigating officer to act as prosecutor, the legal framework permits such an arrangement, provided cross-examination safeguards are in place.
The Court stressed:
“A free and fair trial is a sine qua non of criminal prosecution… but in the context of the Armed Forces, Article 33 recognises the need to balance individual rights with institutional discipline.”
It held that since Regulation 178(3) merely allows competency and not credibility of a prosecutor-witness, judicial safeguards in cross-examination were sufficient to protect fairness.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court upheld the validity of Regulation 178(3) and dismissed the writ petition. It concluded that the petitioner’s challenge was unsustainable in light of Article 33 and settled precedents. However, the Court observed that while the arrangement was constitutionally valid, independence of investigation and prosecution remains a desirable norm, and Navy authorities should strive to separate these roles in future to uphold the spirit of fair trial.
Implications
This ruling affirms that military justice systems operate under a distinct constitutional framework. It underscores that while armed forces personnel enjoy fundamental rights, Parliament can restrict them for reasons of discipline and operational exigencies.
For the Navy and other defence forces, it validates existing procedures allowing investigating officers to act as prosecutors and testify, though the Court’s cautionary note highlights the continuing tension between military discipline and fair trial principles.
FAQs
Q1. Can a prosecutor also testify in court-martial proceedings?
Yes. Regulation 178(3) explicitly allows a prosecutor to be a competent witness, subject to cross-examination.
Q2. Does this violate the right to a fair trial under Article 21?
No. The Court held that Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for Armed Forces, making such provisions valid.
Q3. Can High Courts intervene in court-martial trials?
Yes, but only if there is denial of fundamental rights or jurisdictional error, as recognised in Parashotam Dass (2023).
