BACHAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

BACHAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

There was no illegality or irregularity in the convening or conduct of the GCM; the appellant was afforded proper opportunity to defend himself; the GCM, held by competent authority, was fair, and its findings and sentence were properly confirmed according to law. Judicial review under Article 226 cannot substitute for an appeal on facts or re-appreciation of evidence. The Division Bench correctly set aside the Single Judge's quashing of the GCM.

Parties
Appellant: Bachan Singh; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Under Article 226, Court Martial Proceedings, Army Act Jurisdiction
Constitutional Law Military Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Under Article 226 Court Martial Proceedings Army Act Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bachan Singh

Appellant

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court-Martial (GCM) was convened by a competent authority as per Section 109 of the Army Act, 1950
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings and conviction by GCM were valid, legal, and consistent with the Army Act
  3. 3 Scope of judicial review under Article 226 regarding findings of court-martial

Ratio Decidendi

There was no illegality or irregularity in the convening or conduct of the GCM; the appellant was afforded proper opportunity to defend himself; the GCM, held by competent authority, was fair, and its findings and sentence were properly confirmed according to law. Judicial review under Article 226 cannot substitute for an appeal on facts or re-appreciation of evidence. The Division Bench correctly set aside the Single Judge's quashing of the GCM.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No illegality found in GCM or its confirmation; Division Bench judgment affirmed; no costs awarded.