Gunner Hari Singh v. Union of India and Another

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to RePorter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I For orders see W.P.(C) No. 7018 i}OLO. It *J.) -l --r<-sfl1' l,l q PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J JULY 07, ?OLL pkb WP (c) No.7018/2010, W.P.(C) No.7039/20L0, W.P.(c) No.7040/2010 W.P.(c) No. 7 o4L/2010 & W.P.(cl No. 7 0a2l20lo i.,NIL GAUR, J 2011:DHC:17181-DB *_l /-t \ f /[ I /.h, I a/"/ I u/ \/,\/ flhu rt-tE t-ilGH couRT OF DELI{I AT NEW\pt't-Hl % Date of Decision: 7rh -lul)r 2077. + w. P. (c) 7018 12070 qq N N ER sro*'1+)i,fi?' f,?tsffi.'f hlh";;;'fiT"' VCTSUS;J^':?:1"#illH Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha Rastogi and Ms.Ria l(aul, Advocates + w.P.(c) 7039120L0 GUNNER MILKHI RAM..... PCtitiONCr Mr.C.L. l(alia, Advocates I VCTSUS ' UOI AND ANR..... Respondents: Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with -/ Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul, Advocates. + w.P.(c) 7040120L0 EX.

CAPTAIN SEWA RAM NAGIAL...,.. Petitioner Mr.C.L. l(alia, Advocates l" versus UOI AND ANR..... Respondents Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with Rastogi and Ms.Ria l(aul,. Advocates WP (c) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(c) No. 703el2010, W.P.(c) No.7040/2010 W.P.(C) No.7o4L/2010&W.P.(C)No.7o4212010 Page l[1] r w.P.(c) 704L120r0 GUNNER SAT PAL Th roug h:, VCTSUS UOI AND ANR. Throug h: w.P. (c) 7042l2oro GUNNER HARI SINGH Through: VCTSUS UOI AND ANR Through: M r Dipa r. sh;tt[3]:fl:il":.. Mr A s cn-"Jn[?]1"#illH Advocates M r Di pa k B n;i.::il:,"ilr"i,.o Mr.C.L. l(a lia,'Advocates... Respondents Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with Advocates CORAM: hflonx'BLE MR..ltf sTtcE PRADEEP IVAI\|DR,AjOG F[ON'Bt-E MR..lt.0ST',tCE St0illlL GA[.iR Whether the Reporteis of local papqrs may be qllowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? 3, Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAIOGJ (OTaI),/ 1,

2.

1. These 5 writ petitioners and many other Indian Army were charged by the Military wP (c) No. 7018/2010, W.p.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.p.(C) No.7040/20L0 W.P.(c) No.7041/2010 & W.P.(c) No.7o42/2olo officers of the Intelligence for to the lndian Army, which WAS A

2. At'a Court Martial held in the year 1976, the petitioners" and bthers were charged and convicted for offence under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. All were cashiered from service and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various periods. ' 3. The petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court at Jammu and l(ashmir challenging the verdict of guilt pronounced by the General Court Martial. These writ petitions were filed in the year L978 and were dismissed on 7.4.1983. The judgment attained finality inasmuch as. no appeal was filed against the I judgment and order dated 7.4.1983. 4.' Two officeis - Mr. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr. A.l(. Rana, who were held guilty by the General Cburt Martial filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, which were dismissed on. 23.3,1982 and 4.6.1991 respectively. The,[2] officers challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge.by filing Letter Patent Aplceals.

5. Some officers of the lndian Army, who were not subjected to a General Court Martial, were dismissed from service in.' exercise of power vested in the competent authority under Section 18 of the,Army Act. We may call this power as the administrative power to dismiss a person without a trial or an inq uiry.

6. Several of them filed writ petitions in this Court challenging WP (C) No.7O1Bl2010, W.P.(c) No.7O39l20rr, *.0.(a) No.7O4Ol2010 W.P.(c) No,704112010 & W.P.(cl No.7o42lZ0LO Page | 3 espionage. lt was alleged that the Pakistan Military pertaining threat to the security of the Nation. -..[1] the.administrative dismissals, which writ with the Lett€r Patent Appeals filed by Mr, and Mr. A.K. Rana. \ Ranbir Singh tagged Ratha u r

7. In the year L994, one co-accused Sarwan Dass filed an affidavit stating that Mr. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr. A.K. Rana were wrongly accused. ln the said year'the Full Bench of this Court gave an opinion'pertaining to the scope of judicial review with respect to the scope of judicial intervention against orders of administrative dismissal under Section 18 of the Army Act.

9. The writ petitions filed by the persons against whom administrative dismissal was effected as 'also the Letter Patent Appeals filed by Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr.A.K. Rana' as atso the two subsequent writ petitions filed by them were allowed.on 2L.12.2000 and the proceedings at the General Court Martial were set aside

10. Union of India challenged the judgment 2I.72.2000, by seeking leave. to appeal before WP (C) No.701-8/20L0, W.P.(c) No.7039/2010, W.P.(c) No.7040/201-0 W.P.(c) No.7041./2010 & W.P.(cl No.7o42l2oto order of Supreme -l |l,. and the */ Court. Leave was granted. Civil Appeal No.2949-571200I are pending before the Supreme Court. Operation of the judgment and order dated 21.72.2000 has been stayed.

11. The petitioners thereafter filed writ petitions in this Court in the year 2001 praying that they were entitled to the same relief as was granted to Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr.A.l(. Rana, These writ petitions were adjourned sine die and upon'the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal were transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication