(Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.)
Union of India and Others __________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Vishav Priya Singh ________________________________ Respondent.
Review Petition (Civil) No. 3927 of 2016 In Civil Appeal No. 8360 of 2010, decided on February 16, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Prayer for oral hearing is rejected.
2. The instant petition, which has been filed by the petitioners for review of judgment dated 5-7-20161 rendered by this Court in a batch of civil appeals (including Civil Appeal No. 8360 of 2010), is grossly barred by 117 days, for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered.
3. Thus, though the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself, yet we have carefully gone through the review petition, the judgment impugned2 and the papers connected therewith.
4. The thrust of the review petition is against the observations made by this Court, in paragraphs 20 and 33 of the Judgment under review, which are quoted here :—
“20. The High court of Delhi2 was therefore completely correct in observing that such power must be exercised rarely and when it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is called for. The satisfaction in that behalf must either be articulated in writing or be available on record, specially when the matter can be considered on merits by a tribunal, with the coming into force of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.”
(emphasis added)
“33. …….. We fully endorse and affirm the view taken by the High Court that SCM is an exception and it is imperative that a case must be made out for immediate action. The reasons to convene an SCM must be followed by well articulated reasons or the record itself must justify such resort.”
(emphasis added)
5. It is submitted inter alia in the review petition, that neither the Army Act nor the Army Rules obligate recording of reasons for convening Summary Court Martial.
6. Relying principally on Section 120 of the Army Act, and the other relevant provisions and so also the judgment of High Court of Delhi, which was under appeal, this Court in the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.20161 had made aforesaid observations in paragraphs 20 and 33. We do not find any error apparent on record, calling for any intervention in our review jurisdiction.
7. However, it is observed, that the requirement, as stipulated in aforesaid paragraphs 20 and 33, of recording reasons for convening Summary Court Martial, shall apply on and with effect form the date of the Judgment1 namely from 05.07.2016. Except for this clarification, we are satisfied, that no case for review of the judgment dated 05.07.20161 has been made out.
8. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
———
1 Union of India v. Vishav Priya Singh, (2016) 8 SCC 641 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 489
2 Vishav Priya Singh v. Union of India, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 95 : (2008) 147 DLT 202
