S P N SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was received in this Court through Central Jail, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh). The prayer contained in this petition covers a fairly wide field including a declaration that Rules 88, 89 and 112-A of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950, are ultra vires, being violative of Articles 14 and 22 (1) of the Constitution. The petitioner's trial by General Court-Martial and the finding and sentence by the said Court as also the confirmation of the said sentence are challenged as ultra vires, being violative of Articles 14,21 and 22 (1) and (2) of the Constitution as also contrary to the provisions of the Air Force Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Founded on these main challenges is the prayer that the petitioner be set at liberty. Notice of this petition was given to the respondents and since the petitioner was not represented by a counsel and the petition had also presumbly been drafted by him apparently without legal advice, we requested Shri Keshav Dayal, an Advocate of this Court, to help us as amicus curiae and he was. good enough to agree to assist us. Notice was given on 13/12/1967. On 9/1/1968, Shri Keshav Dayal requested for time to go through the return filed by the respondents which was stated to be a very lengthy documents. The petitioner was present in Court and Shri Keshav Dayal's request to interview him was granted. Indeed, Shri Parkash Narain, the learned counsel for the respondents did not object to this prayer. On 15/1/1968, Shri Keshav Dayal filed a rejoinder affidavit after consultation with the petitioner and Shri Parkash Narain rightly wanted some time to study the rejoinder. Very elaborate arguments were addressed to us at the bar on 18/1/1968 and we are grateful to Shri Keshav Dayal, who has, after great research and industry, assisted us in this matter as amicus curiae. We are equally grateful to Shri Parkash Narain for the assistance rendered by him to us in this case.

(2.) The writ petition drafted by a layman, as it is, consists of more than 35 paragraphs extending over 20 pages. It is unnecessary to refer to it in detail. We may however, briefly state the circumstances in which this petition has been presented. The petitioner, who was a Pilot Officer in the Indian Air Force and was posted at Kanpur, was arrested by the Civil police, Delhi, on 1/9/1963 on the allegation of passing military secrets to nationals of a foreign power. He was found guilty in respect of three charges under sections 71 and 42(e) of the Air Force Act, 1950, and was cashiered on 28/11/1963 to serve rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years. The finding and the sentence of the General Court-Martial were confirmed by the Chief of the Air Staff on 13/12/1963 and on the following day, this was promulgated to him and he was committed to civil prison. According to the averments in the petition, by means of letters dated 24/2/1964 and 7/10/1964, the Air Headquarters and the Government of India informed the petitioner that the Government of India had decided not to furnish to the petitioner with a copy of the General Court-Martial proceedings in. accordance with Rule 112-A framed under the Indian Air Force Act. The petitioner was, however, permitted to inspect the proceedings of the General Court-Martial in accordance with the said rule.

(3.) The petitioner in July, 1967 submitted to the Supreme Court petition under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus in which, broadly speaking, except for the challenge to the vires of Rule 112-A, the grounds were substantially similar to those taken in this Court. The Supreme Court, on that petition, after hearing the petitioner in person and Shri R. H. Dhebar for the respondents dismissed the same on 30/10/1967. The petition forwarded to this Court is dated 29/11/1967.