A Court-martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military‘s own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants. Most navies have a standard court-martial which convenes whenever a ship is lost; this does not presume that the captain is suspected of wrongdoing, but merely that the circumstances surrounding the loss of the ship be made part of the official record. Most military forces maintain a judicial system that tries defendants for breaches of military discipline. Some countries like France have no courts-martial in times of peace and use civilian courts instead.
Composition usually, a court-martial takes the form of a trial with a presiding judge, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney (all trained lawyers as well as officers). The precise format varies from one country to another and may also depend on the severity of the accusation.
Jurisdiction Courts-martial have the authority to try a wide range of military offences, many of which closely resemble civilian crimes like fraud, theft or perjury. Others, like cowardice, desertion, and insubordination, are purely military crimes. Military offences are defined in the Armed Forces Act 2006 for members of the British military. Regulations for the Canadian Forces are found in the Queen’s Regulations and Orders as well as the National Defence Act. For members of the United States Armed Forces offenses are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These offences, as well as their corresponding punishments and instructions on how to conduct a court-martial, are explained in detail based on each country and/or service.
The Border Security Force (BSF) is a central armed police force in India under the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is responsible for guarding India’s borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh. It was formed in the wake of the Indo-Pak War of 1965 to ensure the security of India’s borders and for related matters. The BSF has grown from 25 battalions in 1965, to 193 battalions with a sanctioned strength of 270,000 personnel including an expanding air wing, water wing, an artillery regiment and specialised units. It is currently the world’s largest border security force. BSF has been termed the First Line of Defence of Indian territories.
The BSF Air Wing is a specialized unit within the Border Security Force (BSF) responsible for providing aerial support to the BSF and other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). Established in 1969, it has evolved from a single Queen Air C-80 aircraft to a diverse fleet of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Its primary functions include maintaining remote border outposts, airlifting personnel, transporting equipment and supplies, casualty evacuation, disaster relief, and supporting various CAPF operations, including anti-Naxal activities.
Border Security Force (Water/Marine Wing) is one of the special units of Border Security Force of India. It is responsible for patrolling riverine borders in North Bengal frontier, South Bengal frontier, Andaman Nicobar frontier, Tripura – Mizoram & Cachar (TMC) Frontier, Jammu frontier, Punjab frontier and Gujarat frontier of the BSF. The Water Wing guards around 1400 km of a riverine boundary of India. its members are filled either by deputation basis or from special batches of BSF personal trained from National Inland Navigating Institute, Patna.
List of water craft in Border Security Force (Water Wing)
| Type of crafts | Numbers |
| Floating Border Out Posts (BOP) | 10 |
| Medium Crafts | 12 |
| Mechanised Boats | 25 |
| Speed Boats | 131 |
| Rigid Inflatable Boats | 43 |
| Naka Boats | 120 |
| Country Boats | 92 |
| Fast Patrol Boats | 22 |
| Swamp Boats | 1 |
| Total | 455 |
The Regiment of Artillery is a combat support arm of the Indian Army, which provides massive firepower during all ground operations of the Indian Army. It is a successor to the Royal Indian Artillery (RIA) of British Indian Army, which itself traces its origins to the formation of Bombay Artillery in 1827. Today, it is the second-largest arm of the Indian Army, and with its guns, mortars, rocket launchers, unmanned aerial vehicles, surveillance systems, missiles, and artillery firepower. It constitutes almost one-sixth of its total strength.
The evolution of artillery in India is a rich tapestry woven through centuries of innovation, adaptation, and strategic deployment.
The earliest recorded use of firearms in the Indian subcontinent dates back to 1368, when the Bahmani Sultanate employed artillery against the Vijayanagara Empire at the Battle of Adoni. This marked the beginning of gunpowder weaponry in Indian warfare. By the 15th century, other regional powers, such as the Gujarat Sultanate, had also adopted firearms. The arrival of the Portuguese in 1498 further influenced the use of artillery, introducing naval cannons and the concept of maritime firepower.
The pivotal moment came in 1526 at the First Battle of Panipat, where Babur’s strategic use of field artillery and matchlock muskets led to the establishment of the Mughal Empire. Under subsequent rulers like Akbar, the Mughals expanded their artillery capabilities, integrating firearms into their military structure and standardizing production.
Also Read National Security Act, 1980 – An Introduction
In the 18th century, regional powers such as the Marathas, under leaders like Balaji Baji Rao and Madhavji Sindhia, developed their artillery arms, establishing foundries with European assistance. Tipu Sultan of Mysore advanced the use of rockets and howitzers, while the Nizam of Hyderabad, with French support, and the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, developed their own artillery units.
The British East India Company, recognizing the importance of artillery, formed regular artillery companies in the mid-18th century. Initially manned by Europeans, the shortage of personnel led to the inclusion of Indian support staff known as Golandaz, Gun Lashkars, Tindals, and Serangs. However, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British disbanded most native artillery units, retaining only a few mountain batteries in regions like Punjab and Bombay.
Mountain artillery became a specialized branch, with light guns designed for transport in difficult terrains. These units, comprising primarily Punjabi soldiers, saw extensive action in various campaigns, including the North-West Frontier, Afghanistan, and World War I. Their reputation for excellence was bolstered by the quality of both the British officers and the Indian recruits.
In 1827, the Royal Indian Artillery (RIA) was established as part of the Bombay Army. Post-1857, with the disbandment of most native artillery units, the RIA became the primary artillery force in India. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the RIA expanded, incorporating advancements in artillery technology and playing a crucial role in various military campaigns.
The history of artillery in India reflects a continuous process of adaptation and innovation, influenced by both indigenous developments and external interactions. From early uses in regional conflicts to its central role in imperial and colonial military strategies, artillery has been a defining element in the subcontinent’s military history.
The Border Security Force (BSF) has court-martialled 33 troopers in its Eastern Command in the last two years for their role in various offences. It is also conducting court martial proceedings against 14 more personnel on different charges in the same zone at present. Out of those 33 court-martialled, 24 alone faced the General Security Force Court (GSFC), the most stringent among the three categories of proceedings under the BSF Act.
The revelation comes amid a marathon probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the role of BSF personnel and political networks in the illegal business of cattle smuggling across the India-Bangladesh border in West Bengal. Among the 24 cases, seven were from North Bengal Frontier, six from Guwahati Frontier, four from Meghalaya Frontier, three each from Tripura and South Bengal Frontiers and one in Mizoram & Cachhar (M&C) Frontier, the data shows.
In comparison, the GSFC figure stood at only four– two in North Bengal Frontier and one each in Guwahati and M&C Frontiers– in 2020. It is currently five in South Bengal Frontier, four in North Bengal Frontier, three in Tripura Frontier and two in Guwahati Frontier as pending cases. The Petty Security Force Court (PSFC), which is the second category of court martial in BSF, witnessed disposal of three cases– one each North Bengal, Meghalaya and Tripura Frontiers– in 2020 and one each in North Bengal and South Bengal Frontiers in 2021.
Confirming steps against the errant personnel, BSF (Eastern Command) Special Director General YB Khurania on Thursday said, “It is because of zero tolerance against corruption and connivance we have seen better days in last few years. It also resulted in a decline in trans-border crime. A message has gone loud and clear. BSF Act has given substantial powers to commanders at all levels to take action against the black sheep. If we see any aberration, whatever powers, given to us, will be utilised to deal with it. Several court martial proceedings have been completed, many are in process while others are in different stages of inquiry.”
The Border Security Force (BSF) Act, 1968, under Chapter VI, Sections 64 to 81, and the corresponding procedural guidelines outlined in Sections 82 to 106, establish a comprehensive framework for the administration of justice within the BSF through the institution of Security Force Courts. These specialized tribunals are designed to address offenses committed by members of the armed forces, ensuring discipline and accountability within the organization. The Act delineates three distinct tiers of Security Force Courts, each with specific jurisdictions, powers, and procedural nuances tailored to the severity and nature of the alleged offenses.
The three primary categories of Security Force Courts within the BSF are:
i. General Security Force Courts (GSFCs)
ii. Petty Security Force Courts (PSFCs)
iii. Summary Security Force Courts (SSFCs)
In both the General and Petty Security Force Courts, the presiding member holds a position of seniority, reflecting the hierarchical structure and the importance of experience in adjudicating matters of discipline and law.
General Security Force Courts (GSFCs) represent the highest tier of judicial authority within the BSF’s internal justice system. These courts are convened under the authority of the Central Government, the Director General of the BSF, or any other officer specifically empowered in this regard. The composition of a GSFC is mandated to include a minimum of five officers, each holding the substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or an equivalent position, ensuring a panel of experienced and responsible individuals. Furthermore, the proceedings of a General Security Force Court are required to be attended by a Law Officer, a legally qualified individual whose role is to advise the court on matters of law and procedure, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles. In situations where a Law Officer is not available, the court must be attended by an officer specifically approved by the Chief Law Officer of the BSF. It is noteworthy that once a trial has commenced before a GSFC, the court retains its jurisdiction even if the number of officers falls below the initial five, provided the minimum number required for the continuation of the trial is maintained.
The BSF Act also provides for the dissolution of a Security Force Court under specific circumstances. Such dissolution can occur when it becomes demonstrably impossible to continue the trial, such as in cases of severe illness affecting either the Law Officer or the accused, which renders their continued participation unfeasible. Additionally, the convening officer retains the discretion to dissolve a Security Force Court if they deem it difficult or inexpedient to proceed with the trial for other compelling reasons. A crucial provision accompanying the dissolution of a Security Force Court is that the accused person can be subjected to a fresh trial before a newly constituted court for the same offense, ensuring that justice is not necessarily thwarted by unforeseen circumstances leading to the initial court’s dissolution.
In terms of power, General Security Force Courts possess the most extensive jurisdiction among the three types of BSF courts. They are empowered to try any person who is subject to the BSF Act, meaning individuals falling within the purview of its disciplinary jurisdiction, irrespective of their rank or specific role within the force. Moreover, a GSFC holds the authority to award any punishment permissible under the BSF Act, including the most severe penalties such as dismissal from service and even the death sentence, reflecting the gravity of the offenses they are mandated to adjudicate.
Petty Security Force Courts (PSFCs) constitute an intermediate level within the BSF’s judicial framework. These courts are convened either by a General Security Force Court or by an officer specifically authorized to do so on its behalf, indicating a delegation of authority for handling less severe offenses. Similar to GSFCs, a Petty Security Force Court is expected to be attended by a Law Officer. However, if a Law Officer is unavailable, the proceedings must be attended by an officer who has been duly approved by the Chief Law Officer, ensuring that legal guidance is still accessible to the court.
The power vested in Petty Security Force Courts is more circumscribed than that of GSFCs. While a PSFC can try any person subject to the BSF Act, with a significant exception: it cannot try an officer who is made punishable under the Act. This reflects a hierarchical distinction in the handling of offenses committed by officers, potentially reserving such cases for the higher authority of a General Security Force Court. Furthermore, the sentencing power of a PSFC is also limited. It cannot impose a sentence of death or a term of imprisonment exceeding two years, indicating its role in addressing offenses of a less grave nature compared to those adjudicated by GSFCs.
Summary Security Force Courts (SSFCs) represent the most expeditious form of judicial proceeding within the BSF, designed to address cases that do not involve grave offenses and require immediate action. However, the jurisdiction of an SSFC is explicitly limited; it cannot try offenses punishable under Sections 14 (Mutiny), 17 (Desertion), and 26 (Certain forms of disgraceful conduct) of the BSF Act, highlighting the seriousness of these offenses which necessitate a more formal and comprehensive judicial process.
A Summary Security Force Court can try any person who is under the command of the officer holding the court, emphasizing the immediate chain of command in the initiation and conduct of these proceedings. However, the sentencing powers of an SSFC are also restricted. An officer holding the post of Superintendent of Police or a post declared equivalent by the Central Government, when presiding over an SSFC, cannot pass a sentence of death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. This limitation underscores the summary nature of the court and its focus on relatively less severe disciplinary matters requiring swift resolution.
Furthermore, an SSFC is barred from trying any person who has already been convicted of offenses under Sections 53 (Imprisonment) and 55 (Field punishment) of the BSF Act, preventing double jeopardy and ensuring consistency in the application of justice. A significant provision also exists concerning individuals who are not officers and have served continuously in an exemplary manner for a period of not less than three years; in such cases, no trial by a Summary Security Force Court shall be conducted, recognizing and rewarding a consistent record of good conduct.
The BSF Act also addresses the jurisdictional aspects concerning individuals who cease to be subject to the Act. If an officer or member of the force has ceased to fall under the purview of the Act but is taken into force custody, they shall be tried as if they were still subject to the Act, ensuring that individuals cannot evade accountability by leaving the service after committing an offense. Similarly, a person sentenced to imprisonment under the BSF Act remains subject to its provisions for the duration of their sentence, even if they are subsequently dismissed from the force.
Given the summary nature of the proceedings in an SSFC, the Act grants a degree of discretion to higher authorities in determining the appropriate forum for trial. If the Director General, the Inspector General, or the Deputy Inspector General within whose command the accused is serving believes that the proceedings should be instituted in a different court, they have the authority to decide accordingly. This provision allows for flexibility in the judicial process, ensuring that cases are handled in the most appropriate forum based on the specific circumstances.
Furthermore, the Act addresses the interface between Security Force Courts and ordinary criminal courts. When a criminal court is of the opinion that proceedings should be initiated before a Security Force Court, Section 80 provides a mechanism for this transfer of jurisdiction. The criminal court can either deliver the offender to the nearest magistrate for onward transmission to the appropriate BSF authority or postpone the proceedings before it to allow for the initiation of proceedings under the BSF Act. This provision ensures that matters falling within the disciplinary domain of the BSF are appropriately dealt with by its specialized judicial system.
The procedure before a Security Force Court is designed to ensure fairness and transparency. Before the commencement of the trial, the name of the presiding officer and other members of the court must be read over to the accused. If the accused raises an objection to any member, the objection must be heard and recorded. The remaining officers of the court then deliberate on the objection, and if it is upheld by a majority of at least one and a half of the votes of the officers, the objected member is required to retire, and the proceedings continue with the remaining members.
To ensure the integrity of the proceedings, every member of a Summary Security Force Court and any Law Officer attending the trial are required to take an oath or affirmation before the trial begins, pledging to administer justice impartially and according to the law. Similarly, every person who appears before the court to give evidence is also required to be duly examined under oath or affirmation before their testimony is considered.
Decisions made by a Security Force Court are generally required to be passed by an absolute majority of votes. In cases where there is an equality of votes, the decision is deemed to be against the accused, reflecting the principle that a conviction requires a clear majority. However, in the case of a death sentence imposed by a General Security Force Court, a higher threshold is required: the sentence must be supported by a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of the court, underscoring the gravity and finality of such a punishment.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is explicitly made applicable to all proceedings before a Security Force Court, ensuring that the principles governing the admissibility and relevance of evidence in ordinary courts of law also apply in these specialized tribunals. Furthermore, a Security Force Court is empowered to take judicial notice of any matters that are commonly known or can be readily ascertained, streamlining the process by obviating the need for formal proof of such facts.
Regarding the summoning of witnesses and the production of documents, the BSF Act outlines specific procedures. For officers approved as convening officers and the presiding officer under Section 83, they are required to attend at the specified time and place to give evidence or produce any relevant documents when summoned. For other witnesses, the Act provides that the jurisdiction magistrate should issue the necessary summons. Such summons must clearly specify whether the witness is required to give evidence or to produce any document or other thing relevant to the proceedings.
To facilitate the production of documents that may be in official custody, the Act provides a mechanism involving judicial authorities. If a document is in the custody of a District Magistrate, Chief Presidency Magistrate, High Court, or a Court of Session, these authorities may require the postal or telegraph authorities to deliver such document to a designated person, ensuring that critical evidence is accessible to the Security Force Court.
Finally, recognizing the complexities of obtaining evidence from individuals residing in tribal areas within India or outside the country, the BSF Act incorporates provisions for the issuance of commissions for the examination of witnesses. These provisions are aligned with the procedures outlined in Chapter XI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ensuring that the Security Force Courts have the necessary legal tools to gather evidence effectively, regardless of the geographical location of the witnesses.
In conclusion, the framework established by Chapter VI, Sections 64 to 81, and the procedural guidelines in Sections 82 to 106 of the BSF Act, 1968, provides a robust and comprehensive system for the adjudication of offenses committed by members of the Border Security Force. The three-tiered structure of General, Petty, and Summary Security Force Courts, each with defined jurisdictions and powers, ensures that a range of offenses can be appropriately addressed. The emphasis on legal oversight through the involvement of Law Officers, the detailed procedures for convening courts, handling objections, administering oaths, and making decisions based on majority votes, along with the applicability of the Indian Evidence Act and the mechanisms for summoning witnesses and procuring documents, collectively underscore the commitment to ensuring a fair and just disciplinary process within the Border Security Force. The provisions addressing the dissolution of courts, the treatment of individuals who cease to be subject to the Act, and the interface with ordinary criminal courts further refine this framework, creating a comprehensive system for maintaining discipline and accountability within this vital security organization.
By Nikita Singh Intern at http://Fastrack legal solutions
