The Kerala High Court has held that an officer who investigates a case may also serve as its prosecutor during court-martial proceedings, ruling that the combination of both functions does not automatically infringe upon an accused service member’s right to a fair trial.
Dismissing an appeal brought by a veteran sailor, a division bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John overturned a single judge’s earlier observation that assigning both responsibilities to the same individual could prejudice the trial. In its September 18 ruling, the bench noted that governing naval regulations contain no express prohibition barring an investigating officer from conducting the prosecution.
The bench explained that the duties of a court-martial prosecutor are strictly confined to bringing the accused before the bench and submitting the evidence for the record. Because of this limited function, the court noted that the role does not demand an independent authority, requiring only a suitable person to lead the proceedings.
Addressing constitutional protections under Article 21, the judges observed that while legislation infringing upon fundamental rights is generally unconstitutional, Part III guarantees remain subject to Article 33. Under that provision, Parliament holds the authority to restrict the fundamental rights of armed forces personnel to the extent necessary to preserve public order and military discipline.
Challenge Over Rs 1.10 Lakh Cheating Allegation
The ruling arose from a petition filed by Santosh Karwade, an Indian Navy personnel with 31 years of service. Karwade faced court-martial under the Navy Act, 1957, in connection with allegations that he dishonestly induced an officer, Balachandran, to transfer Rs 1.10 lakh.
His charges included cheating under the Indian Penal Code, invoked alongside Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, which extends military jurisdiction over civil offences committed by naval personnel. Karwade initiated his legal challenge after the court-martial had already recorded depositions from eight witnesses.
Karwade contended that appointing his investigating officer as the prosecutor compromised his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. A single-judge bench had previously observed that an investigating officer could not be deemed a suitable person to prosecute the same matter, but declined to halt the trial, directing Karwade instead to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal post-verdict to establish whether any prejudice had occurred.
Statutory Framework And Procedural Rules
Before the division bench, Karwade’s counsel, Advocate Aysha Abraham, argued that while the single judge disapproved of the dual assignment, the court stopped short of declaring Regulation 178(3) unconstitutional. That regulation permits a prosecutor to also be examined as a witness. Abraham noted that the ruling had left Karwade with no recourse other than approaching the Armed Forces Tribunal after conviction.
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General of India P. Sreekumar argued on behalf of the government that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not govern naval courts-martial. Instead, trials operate under the distinct procedural framework laid out in the Navy Act and its associated regulations.
Sreekumar added that under Section 4 of the Navy Act, fundamental rights apply to naval personnel only in a modified form, pointing out that the Central Government possesses the constitutional mandate to enforce special military legislation.
Upholding the validity of the procedure, the division bench dismissed Karwade’s appeal and formally struck down the single judge’s findings regarding potential prejudice.
