I was under training for being commissioned into the Army at Officers Training School (OTS), Madras (as it was then known) from May 1977 to March 1978. During that time I witnessed the use of Section 63 of the Army Act 1950, with impunity. This section related to acts of omission or commission that violated good order and military discipline. This was applied with missionary zeal even on minor offences and it was an all-encompassing section which could cover all offences that were not dealt with by other sections of the archaic act. Two incidents are etched in my memory which I am about to describe – the first happened while I was there and the second is hearsay as it happened after I had passed out (but I knew the hapless culprit).
In the first instance a ‘gentleman cadet’ was caught in an out-of-bound area with a lady companion in his birthday suit. He was promptly charged under Section 63 and the charge sheet read thus : “ An act prejudicial to good order and military discipline, in that No……..GC……..while at OTS, Madras, on (date), at (time), was found consorting with a woman of ill repute near Marina beach”. The bloke was summarily punished and promptly relegated to the junior course. Well, this guy also had his connections and advisers and he went into appeal. This particular charge was withdrawn as it would be tough to prove that the woman he was caught with was of “ill-repute”. However, he was again charged under the same section for “violating anti-malaria precautions” and duly punished.
In the second case a gentleman cadet reported sick and it was discovered that he had contracted some ‘sexually transmitted disease’. He was also charge sheeted and asked to pack his bags. This guy later went to court and won the case as, under the Army Act, ‘contracting’ such a disease was NOT an offence whereas 'concealing' it was. He was reinstated with his course and even got some damages I believe.
PS. The decisions in most cases dealt with under the Army Act 1950, used to be overturned by the civil courts either because of inherent flaws in the said act or because of the wrong application of the provisions made thereunder. We have been hearing of the Act being overhauled and updated since time immemorial but it is still in use.
In the first instance a ‘gentleman cadet’ was caught in an out-of-bound area with a lady companion in his birthday suit. He was promptly charged under Section 63 and the charge sheet read thus : “ An act prejudicial to good order and military discipline, in that No……..GC……..while at OTS, Madras, on (date), at (time), was found consorting with a woman of ill repute near Marina beach”. The bloke was summarily punished and promptly relegated to the junior course. Well, this guy also had his connections and advisers and he went into appeal. This particular charge was withdrawn as it would be tough to prove that the woman he was caught with was of “ill-repute”. However, he was again charged under the same section for “violating anti-malaria precautions” and duly punished.
In the second case a gentleman cadet reported sick and it was discovered that he had contracted some ‘sexually transmitted disease’. He was also charge sheeted and asked to pack his bags. This guy later went to court and won the case as, under the Army Act, ‘contracting’ such a disease was NOT an offence whereas 'concealing' it was. He was reinstated with his course and even got some damages I believe.
PS. The decisions in most cases dealt with under the Army Act 1950, used to be overturned by the civil courts either because of inherent flaws in the said act or because of the wrong application of the provisions made thereunder. We have been hearing of the Act being overhauled and updated since time immemorial but it is still in use.
No comments:
Post a Comment