### Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedure for Recording a Plea of Guilty Vitiates Summary Court Martial Proceedings

The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps in 1992 and accumulated three red ink entries during his service.

In November 1998, he was charge-sheeted under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, for outraging the modesty of a lady officer.

A Summary Court Martial (SCM) was convened, and based on an alleged plea of guilty, the petitioner was convicted on December 1, 1998, sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment, and dismissed from service.

The petitioner challenged this before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), alleging procedural violations regarding the convening of the SCM and the recording of the plea of guilt.

The AFT dismissed his petition on January 20, 2025, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.

1. Whether the Summary Court Martial was legally convened in accordance with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 120(2) of the Army Act, 1950.

2. Whether the plea of guilty was recorded in compliance with the mandatory safeguards and procedure prescribed under Rule 115(2) of the Army Rules.

Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, mandates that for serious offences (including Section 69, civil offences), an officer holding an SCM must refer the matter to an officer empowered to convene a District Court Martial unless there is a grave reason for immediate action.

Army Rule 115(2) requires the Court to ensure a plea of guilty is voluntary, to explain the nature and general effect of such a plea to the accused, and to record the accused’s understanding of these consequences before acceptance.

The High Court upheld the AFT’s finding that the SCM was properly convened, noting that the Officiating General Officer Commanding, 8 Mountain Division—who is competent to convene a District Court Martial—had authorized the trial.

However, the High Court found a critical failure regarding the plea of guilt.

While the respondents claimed the petitioner signed a statement acknowledging the plea after due explanation, the petitioner vehemently denied this in a rejoinder.

Despite the Court providing the respondents over four weeks to produce the original SCM records to verify compliance with Rule 115(2), the respondents failed to produce the file.

Applying an adverse inference, the Court reasoned that the failure to produce the record indicated that the mandatory safeguards for recording a plea of guilt were likely bypassed.

The High Court set aside the AFT’s judgment and quashed the dismissal order dated December 4, 1998.

The Court directed the immediate reinstatement of the petitioner, with the caveat that the respondents are at liberty to resume the SCM proceedings from the stage of the plea (as if no plea was recorded) to conclude the trial as per law.

The entitlement to back wages remains contingent upon the final outcome of the resumed SCM proceedings.