O R D E R
15.04.2026
Ignoring the office objection and directing the office to register the OA, heard the matter on the question of admission. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant calls in question the tenability of an interlocutory order (Annexure A-1) passed in a pending General Court Martial rejecting the prayer of the applicant for summoning certain witnesses. After hearing the applicant's arguments vide the impugned order (Annexure A-1) dated 29.03.2026, the said request has been dismissed. The OA is ex facie premature, as the applicant's own pleadings disclose that the trial is still continuing and that interim restraint has been sought against the passing of final orders by the GCM.
1
2
2. Before proceeding to consider the submissions made by the applicant, on merits, it would be appropriate to refer to the conduct of the applicant which prima facie indicates that he is somehow trying to stall the court martial proceedings and delay the same. The applicant is holding the rank of Col. in the Indian Army and a charge sheet has been issued to him wherein six allegations have been made with regard to outraging the modesty of a woman officer being an offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 69 of the Army Act,1950. It is alleged against the applicant that while posting at Nasirabad on 13.11.2022, he used criminal force on a co-employee, Major A in the Army, hugged her and intentionally tried to outrage her modesty.
3. He is further alleged to have used criminal force against her on 27.03.2023, inasmuch as he is stated to have touched her neck and thigh, as detailed in the charge sheet (Annexure A-2). Thereafter, on a third occasion, during the period between March and April 2023, he is alleged to have sent messages to her on WhatsApp containing sexual inducement. Further, the fourth charge is that on 25.03.2023, between 2300 hours and 2330 hours, he is alleged to have sent obscene material, in the form of an image and a
3
video, to the complainant through WhatsApp, thereby behaving in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the Indian Army.
4. The fifth charge pertains to certain acts allegedly committed by him between February and March 2023 in relation to another woman officer, Captain B, in the Indian Army, and he is stated to have committed the following acts:
"5(a) during her report of Gynecology Outpatient Department to the accused, said, "Good that we have a lady officer else males are interested in Gynecology Outpatient Department for obvious reasons" or words to that effect.
(b) while discussing about her participation in group dance planned during Army Medical Corps Day celebrations, said "Karo karo, anyways males like to see a girl dance" or words to that effect."
5. Finally, the sixth charge is that, in March 2023, he is again alleged to have made sexually coloured remarks to another officer, Major D, a woman officer, and the allegations leveled read as under:
"at Nasirabad, in March 2023, made sexually coloured remarks to Major D by stating, "this bottle looks sexy, slim and trim like Major "D" or words to that effect."
6. All these charges were leveled against the applicant after a Court of Inquiry was conducted into the matter. Immediately, upon issuance of the charge sheet and commencement of the General Court Martial, the applicant invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal
4
by filing OA No. 5/2026, raising a plea that, in view of the limitation prescribed under the relevant statutory provisions i.e. Sec. 122 of the Army Act, the trial by court martial was barred. Upon rejection of the said plea, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of the aforesaid OA. The same was heard by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and, by a detailed order dated 05.01.2026, the application was dismissed at the preliminary stage, with a direction to the applicant to raise all such grounds before the court martial in accordance with law. That apart, the challenge is contrary to the earlier order dated 05.01.2026 passed in OA No.5/2026, whereby the applicant was granted liberty to raise all permissible grounds before the GCM and thereafter assail the final findings upon conclusion of trial.
7. Having failed to stall the court martial proceedings by filing OA No. 5/2026, the applicant once again invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal within a month by filing OA (Appeal) No. 670/2026, wherein he raised certain grievances regarding the recording of evidence during the court martial proceedings. The applicant also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by AFT(RB) Kolkata in OA No. 61/2012 with OA 60/2012, decided on 16.05.2014 in Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh v. Union Of India & Others, contending that
5
the proceedings were not being conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down therein.
8. After hearing the applicant at length and examining various aspects of the matter, including the orders passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dated 30.05.2025 in MA 1261/2025 and MA 1262/2025 and OA(Appeal) 326/2025 in the case of Col Vikas Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors., the learned Bench issued certain directions regarding the recording of evidence and the procedure to be followed for obtaining signatures on depositions. Upon disposal of the aforesaid OA on 25.02.2026, it appears that the applicant, for the third time, filed an application before the General Court Martial seeking the examination of three witnesses, namely Brig. Arindam Mookherjee and Col. Anju Dalal, as well as Brig. Virender Singh, the Commanding Officer, as defence witnesses. It was contended that these officers had conducted the Court of Inquiry in violation of the provisions of the Army Rules and that, based on the findings recorded therein, the charge sheet was issued to the applicant and the trial had commenced.
9. Inter alia, the applicant contends that during the Court of Inquiry, the original copies of the complaints made by the complainants, marked as Exhibits 26, 27 and 28, were not supplied
6
to him and only photocopies were provided. It was, therefore, urged that in order to examine the conduct of the officers who conducted the Court of Inquiry and to ventilate his grievance that the original of the complaints were not provided and that the records had been manipulated, the photocopies supplied to the applicant are not copies of the original complaints, the applicant sought the summoning of the said officers as defence witnesses.
10. Inter alia, contending that important documents, namely, the original copies of the complaint, written and signed by the complainant including that of Maj A(complainant) was not produced in the GCM and therefore, the defence has been deprived to effectively cross examine the complainants and other prosecution witnesses, this OA has been filed.
11. The applicant, inter alia, contended that the originals of the complaints, marked as Exhibits 26, 27 and 28, had not been brought on record. It was further urged that the applicant has a right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, including an opportunity to establish his innocence and to demonstrate bias, mala fides, and an alleged conspiracy against him, in which the Presiding Officer of the Court of Inquiry, Brig. Arindam Mukherjee, Col. Anju Dalal, and the Commanding Officer are stated to have played a vital role. On
7
these grounds, the applicant seeks to examine them as defence witnesses.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having bestowed our anxious consideration on the various aspects of the matter, we are of the view that if there is any defect in the conduct of the trial, including non-supply of documents in accordance with law, such as furnishing only photocopies without producing the originals and if it is established by evidence that the originals were available but were not produced, the matter shall be dealt with by the court conducting the trial in accordance with law. At this stage, when the Court Martial proceedings are going on, we are of the considered opinion that no indulgence is warranted by this Tribunal merely on the ground that the applicant seeks to examine the officers who conducted the Court of Inquiry as defence witnesses. Such a ground does not justify interference by this Tribunal at this stage.
13. In the impugned order it is stated that the court has come to the conclusion that the defence has failed to establish by any cogent evidence or contradiction of any conspiracy on the part of the presiding officer and members of the court of inquiry or any other senior officer to have connived with the prosecution witness No.1.
8
Prosecution witnesses 1, 3 and 4 have withstood the test of cross examination on the complaints produced as exhibit 26, 27 and 28.
14. In our considered view, the finding recorded by the Court that the applicant is indulging in a fishing inquiry warrants no interference. Further, the reliance placed on Rule 77(3) of the Army Rules, 1954 does not confer any right upon the applicant to summon the officers who conducted the Court of Inquiry or the officer who convened the same. The said Rule reads as under:-
"(3) The Court shall allow great latitude to the accused in making his defence; he must abstain from any remarks contemptuous or disrespectful towards the Court, and from coarse and insulting language towards others."
15. The applicant is given latitude to make his defence under this provision. There is nothing in this provision which indicates that the applicant has any right to summon the Members who conducted the Court of Inquiry. In our considered view, applicant is simply trying to delay the proceedings and this is the third attempt on his part to somehow stall the proceedings of the GCM.
16. The applicant, having already raised a Special Plea to Jurisdiction and Plea in Bar before the GCM, which stood rejected, cannot be permitted to indirectly re-agitate issues relating to jurisdiction, the validity of the Court of Inquiry, and the pre-trial
9
process under the guise of a challenge to refusal of defence witnesses.
16(a). The applicant's own reference to the remedy under Section 164(1) of the Army Act shows that the statutory military justice process remains incomplete and has not yet reached the stage warranting appellate or supervisory interference. 16(b) Rule 77(3) of the Army Rules does not confer an absolute or unfettered right upon the accused to compel examination of every witness named by the defence irrespective of relevance, the Rule itself contemplating caution by the court as to irrelevance and in a proper case, refusal to permit each evidence.
16(c) The impugned order records a reasoned finding that the proposed witnesses lacked personal knowledge or interest in the facts in issue and that their examination would amount to a fishing inquiry into the conduct of the Court of Inquiry. 16(d) The GCM has further noted that the relevant prosecution witnesses had already been cross-examined on Exhibits 26, 27 and 28, and on that basis declined the request to summon additional officers.
10
16(e) The pleadings also disclose that steps had already been taken for securing the presence of certain proposed witnesses, including Col Anju Dalal, which negatives any allegation of refusal at the threshold to act in terms of Rule 137.
16(f) In substance, the grievance projected by the applicant is directed against the GCM's assessment of relevance and necessity of proposed defence evidence, which is essentially an evidentiary matter falling within the domain of the trial court and not a fit subject for interlocutory interference by this Tribunal.
17. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere into the matter at this interlocutory stage. The prayer of the applicant to summon the defence witnesses has been rejected considering the fact that the witnesses sought to be summoned are the presiding officers/members who conducted the court of inquiry and gave their finding based on which the trial has been commenced and if in the trial the prosecution fails to prove the charges by leading appropriate oral and documentary evidence, the consequences shall follow. The applicant cannot insist on producing the members who conducted the Court of Inquiry as his defence witnesses.
11
18. Even though learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon certain documents, these are issues which can be examined in an appeal after the trial is concluded. At the stage of the trial, an appellate forum cannot interfere into the matter particularly when there are serious allegations against the applicant.
19. Even the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Tharammel Peethambaran and Anr. v. T. Ushakrishnan and Anr. (2026) LiveLaw (SC) 128 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said judgment will become relevant on a regular appeal filed after trial and not at this interlocutory stage.
20. The Application is dismissed before admission.
[JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON]
CHAIRPERSON
[REAR ADMIRAL DHIREN VIG]
MEMBER (A)
/vb/