Delhi High Court
Ex. Rect./Rfn Nahar Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 May, 2006
Bench: M Sharma, R Khetrapal
ORDER
CM No. 5636/2006
1. Pursuant to our order dated 27.04.2006, officiating Judge Advocate General is present in the Court. We are informed that the Judge Advocate General is indisposed and, therefore, today there is officiating Judge Advocate General, who is in-charge of the JAG Department.
2. We have heard him as also the counsel appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the respondent has taken us through the affidavit filed by the Chief of the Army Staff. It is disclosed from the said affidavit that steps are being taken for bringing improvement in the JAG Department and also for the functioning of the Army Legal Cell. It is also projected in the said affidavit that several meetings have taken place at the highest level for bringing in certain changes for better management of the Department and certain decisions have been taken which are set out in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed by the Chief of the Army Staff. It further transpires there from that the aforesaid decisions which have been taken are in the process of being implemented. We appreciate the manner in which things are being taken in right earnest after our orders were passed. However, an Action Taken Report and a Progress Report shall be submitted by the competent authority within three months from today. There is one other aspect of the matter. After going through the entire statements in the affidavit and the problem being faced by the JAG Department, we are of the considered opinion that a study should be taken up by the Ministry of defense for upgrading the JAG Department in order to enable them to be more effective in the courts as also in all other forums. Our attention is drawn to para 33 of the Regulations for the Army, wherein it is provided that the JAG is the Legal Adviser to the Chief of the Army Staff in matters of military, martial and international law. The activities and the responsibilities of JAG must have increased manifold through the years and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that steps should be taken to consider as to why the said Department should not be upgraded like any other effective Branch. A study should be made within the next three months and a report thereon be submitted to this Court before the next date.
3. Our attention is also drawn to the note issued by the Major General from the Chief of the Army Staff Secretariat, which pertains to timely completion of statutory/non-statutory complaints. Time frame for processing complaints has been set out in the aforesaid note, and a follow-up action to be taken by each of the authorities mentioned in the said note is also set out for compliance. It is expected that all the authorities concerned therewith would adhere to the time schedule stated therein, which is also reiterated in several of our pronouncements. We should also be informed about the progress in this regard. A Status Report with regard to the same shall also be submitted along with the other Action Taken Report in terms of the order passed today. The matter shall be listed before this Court on 28th August, 2006 for consideration of this aspect of the matter.
4. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief of the Army Staff and also to the Secretary, Ministry of defense for their information and also for necessary action.
WP(C) 12853/2005
5. The counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that rejoinder is being filed within a week. An advance copy thereof is already furnished to the counsel appearing for the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner shall get the rejoinder placed on record.
6. It is stated by the counsel appearing for the respondent that certain documents concerning the proceedings of the Medical Board are handed over to the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Renotify on 4th September, 2006 for hearing.
