Army Rule 180 and Article 22 of the Indian Constitution: A Comparative Study Through the Lens of Natural Justice and Equity

• FastrackGovind
• Armed forces tribunal, articles by interns
• January 3, 2025

Introduction to Army Rule 180

In a country as varied and actively democratic as India, natural justice and equity are the basic building blocks of all legal and procedural aspects. These principles ensure that fairness and accountability are maintained in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. There are many articles and rules incorporating such principles, among them Article 22 of the Indian Constitution and Army Rule 180 of the Army Rules 1954, which emphasize providing procedural safeguards, albeit in different but related areas.

To Indian people Article 22 is of great importance to Indian people since it prohibits arbitrary arrest and preventive detention. Related to that is Army Rule 180, which deals with military officers‘ scientific and status rights at Courts of Inquiry. The present document deals with those clauses comparatively, examines them against requirements of fairness and natural justice and assesses court ruling on the particular substantively to identify the areas of strengths and weaknesses.

Army Rule 180: Procedural Safeguards for Military Personnel

Army Rule 180 indicates that no one should bear the loss of reputation, career or character in any investigation without us being put in a situation to defend ourselves. The following are the main procedural protections under this rule:

1. Right to be Present: The individual has the right to be present at all stages of the inquiry.

2. Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses: The accused are able to cross examine witnesses who hold evidence which the accused deems may work against them.

3. Right to Present Evidence: They can present evidence and give witnesses to their defense.

4. Protection of Reputation: No. 180, in cases of all investigations prevent loss of the individual’s reputation and career due to a biased or vague inquiry procedure.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Multiple judicial decisions have highlighted the scope of application of Army Rule 180 and the most important of them are listed below:

1. Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. Union of India: Lt. Col Prasad Purohit v Union of India is pertinent. The Court of Appeal reiterated that any contravention of Rule 180 is a violation of the rules of natural justice. It was held that the inquiry had to be resumed by the appellant so that the appellant can have the opportunity to defend himself.

2. Union of India v. Major A. Hussain: This case also guided the fact that Army Rule 180 is of mandatory character. The court ruled that failure to comply has the effect that the proceedings in question are ultra vires because adherence to such a requirement is essential in the attainment of fairness of the due process.

3. Lt. Gen. Surinder Singh v. Union of India: It can be said without any hesitation that the right to cross-examine the witnesses or bring evidence to support his case has been placed in serious jeopardy and The Rule 180 that is not required of the individual is given realistic right. The inquiry was quashed on grounds of lack of adherence to procedural safeguards.

4. Col. A.K. Bhandari v. Union of India: It was so held that the rights of the accused may be more than seriously prejudiced due to the procedural irregularities in the execution of the aiming rules such that the inquiry becomes untenable.

What emerges from these decisions is that there is no scope for other considerations as the rule has to be complied with at all times fairly and irrespective of anything else.

Article 22: Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest and Preventive Detention

Article 22 of the Constitution of Indian provides two different safeguards:

1. Rights of Arrested Individuals:
   • Right to be informed of being arrested.
   • Have the right to consult a legal practitioner and defend himself.
   • Should be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
   • Should not be detained for more than 24 hours without judicial approval.
2. Preventive Detention:
   • Preventive detention allows authorities to detain individuals to prevent them from acting in a manner harmful to public order or national security.
   • Such detentions can be extend up to three months without any trial, subject to the recommendation of an advisory board.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Article 22 has been subjected to intense judicial interpretation on the ground that it is a provision for individual liberty and for preventive detention. Significant cases include:

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras: The Supreme Court supported the exercise of preventive detention but with safeguards, stressing individual liberty and state security.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: The Court read in the procedural requirement into Article 21 that was not there before thus modifying also the relationship between the application of Article 21 and Article 22

3. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab: Judicial inspection on the exercise of preventive detention was given green light by the court but it timely noted that such laws are injudicious and should be exercised cautiously and control measures strictly adhered to.

4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP: The Court viewed the discontinuance of such practices as an interdict rather than a diversion from the legal norm thereby reinforcing those procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 22.

5. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla: This case is also referred to as the Habeas Corpus case, in a controversial ruling, the Court did not strike down the law preventing imprisonment without trial during the Emergency period, thus fuelling debate about individual freedom.

Comparison of Army Rule 180 and Article 22

Both provisions seek to uphold the principles of natural justice and equity, albeit in distinct contexts. Below is a comparative analysis:

Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice

Natural Justice Principles Under The Army Rule 180

Those principles of natural justice which include the right to be heard, are very much embedded in Army Rule 180. The right to a fair hearing is protected by the accused being able to bear witnesses, adduce evidence and take part in inquiry hearings. Any violation of these rights and protections is, according to judicial interpretations, an infringement of the natural justice which is also the position in Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. Union of India.

Natural Justice Principles Under Article 22

It appears to me that article 22 complements the requirements of natural justice in that it provides safeguards against arbitrary action by the state, which is a big threat to the rule of law. Each provision, however, has risks associated with it because, in practice, the laws regarding preventative detention limit the ability of the person to seek a hearing. This paradox was highlighted in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras where the court allowed laws that provided for preventive detention although equity was a matter of concern.

Equity in Practice

Equity Under Army Rule 180

This rule on military personnel structure recognizes the risk of harm and abuse without which discipline cannot be maintained. It also employs a sense of practicality in the regard for the organizational nature of armed forces and the operations of them.

Equity Under Article 22

The sovereign and other such apprehension and detention organs when Article 22 is invoked do tend to abuse, which further exacerbates the situation on an important subject before the courts rallies around the Dasgupta. It was evident from the ADM Jabalpur case, the misuse of law that Article 22 during the Emergency created enormous weakness in anti-suppression economic sectors.

Challenges and Recommendations

Challenges in Rule 180

1. Discretionary application by inquiry officers leads to inconsistent implementation.
2. Lack of awareness among military personnel about their rights under the rule.
3. Absence of explicit provisions for legal representation.

Challenges in Article 22

1. Preventive detention provisions often result in misuse by authorities.
2. Limited transparency and accountability compromise natural justice.
3. Prolonged detention without trial undermines equity.

Recommendations

1. For Army Rule 180:
   • Ensure strict compliance through training and oversight mechanisms.
   • Include legal representation as an explicit right during Courts of Inquiry.
   • Increase awareness among military personnel about their rights.
2. For Article 22:
   • Introduce stricter safeguards against misuse of preventive detention provisions.
   • Enhance transparency and judicial review in preventive detention cases.
   • Amend provisions to strike a better balance between individual rights and state security.

                                                     Conclusion

It can be observed that both the provisions of Rule 180 and Article 22 of the law are of great importance in protecting the fundamental rights of a person and at the same time ensuring discipline with the institution and security of the state. In the case of Rule 180, the specific rule proves to be beneficial in providing the armed forces with fairness in their internal structure. In contrast, Article 22 captures the essence of preventive detention of the suffering of state interference. These provisions serve to enhance confidence in the legal and institutional practices of the country by providing standards of natural justice and fairness. However generous enforcement, supervision and education to the public- and stakeholders in particular- seem to be imperative to make such legal potential really able to serve. These safeguards can be further reinforced through the judicial review and through the legislative initiatives in the future.

Abhay Choudhary a third year student of Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur Intern at Fastrack Legal Solutions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes and Rules

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Army Rules, 1954.

Case Law

1. Sub. Ved Prakash v. Union of India, 1988 SCC OnLine SC 130.
2. Major R.S. Kalra v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1090.
3. Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1070.
4. Bahadur Singh v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Gau 327.
5. Naib Subedar Manjeet Singh v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Utt 113.
6. Union of India v. Ex. Sepoy Virendra Kumar, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 160.
7. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
9. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1349.
10. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.
11. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579.
12. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 3592.

Online Resources

1. Government of India. eGazette of India. https://egazette.nic.in
2. Indian Kanoon. Case Law Database. https://indiankanoon.org
3. Ministry of Defence. Army Regulations and Policy Documents. https://mod.gov.in