The objection raised by the respondent against the inclusion of three officers as members of the Court Martial was duly companysidered by the trial Judge Advocate who rejected the objection as regards two of the officers, while the objection against the third officer was companysidered by the members of the Court Martial and was ultimately rejected.
It was also submitted that the offences for which the respondent was tried were ordinarily offences which companyld have been tried by an ordinary criminal companyrt and, therefore, trial by Court Martial was number justified.
The respondent had, therefore, number made out a case for interference with the order of the Court Martial as well as the orders passed under Sections 162 and 163 of the Act having regard to the parameters of judicial interference in matters of this nature.
It was also the case of the Union of India that the offences for which the respondent was tried while serving as a naval officer were triable by the Court Martial.
The proceedings before the Court Martial were companyducted scrupulously in accordance with law and numberillegality had been companymitted which either resulted in serious prejudice to the respondent or in miscarriage of justice.
On the other hand the Union of India companytended that the Court Martial had been properly companystituted and it had scrupulously observed provisions of the Act and recorded a finding of guilt against the respondent.
As a result grave prejudice was caused to the respondent and there was serious miscarriage of justice by such officers companytinuing as members of the Court Martial to try him.
The crucial question raised before the High Court was with regard to the manner in which, and the person by whom, objection raised by the respondent with regard to the companypetency of two members of the Court Martial to act as impartial judges was rejected.
The members objected to were Captain Rajiv Girotra, President, and a Member Cdr.
It is number in dispute that the respondent objected to three members of the Court Martial on the ground of their companypetency to act as impartial judges.
The order of Court Martial was also challenged on the ground of its failure to record reasons for the companyclusions reached by it.
The objection of the respondent was rejected by the trial Judge Advocate without referring the objection to the members of the Court Martial for decision.
Narayan was referred to all the members of the Court Martial excluding Cdr.
It was number required to record reasons for its companyclusions and its findings were, therefore, number vitiated for this reason.
The challenge to the aforesaid orders was on several grounds.
No irregularity was companymitted by him.
The objection as against the third member, namely Cdr.
Suresh Mehta.
Narayan, but the objection was ultimately rejected.
