In the first public hearing against the indictment of Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, former military secretary and the seniormost general to face court martial proceedings, in the Sukna land case, the Armed Forces Tribunal today said his long years of service and a meritorious career did not make him a ?holy cow? in the eyes of a court of law.
The Principal Bench led by Justice AK Mathur, a retired Supreme Court judge and chairman of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), was reacting to the repeated reference made by advocate Jyoti Singh, counsel for Prakash, about how the order for disciplinary action by Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor was a personal blow for her client after ?38 years of meritorious service?.
?This is my reward on my last working day after 38 years of meritorious service… after the VSMs and AVSMs. This is what they gave me,? Singh said, referring to the Army Chief?s order for disciplinary action leading to court martial proceedings against Prakash.
Unfazed, Justice Mathur responded: ?Talking of your years in service and VSMs, AVSMs, etc will not make you a holy cow. Here we are only concerned with the law.?
The two-hour hearing at the Tribunal?s Court 1 began with Singh asking the Bench to quash the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry held at the Kolkata Headquarters, Bengal Area on September 30, 2009 to indict Prakash for allegedly influencing then General Officer Commanding 33 Corps PK Rath to issue a no-objection certificate for the transfer of 71 acres adjacent to the Sukna military station to family friend and real estate developer Dilip Agarwal.
The counsel termed the proceedings in the Court of Inquiry as legally untenable on the ground that all 14 witnesses arrayed against Prakash were examined in his absence.
?Many witnesses have said many things against me and damaged my reputation behind my back,? Singh put forward her client?s case. The counsel sought an interim stay in the attachment order against Prakash for court martial proceedings.
As per Army Rule 180, a soldier whose reputation is affected by a Court of Inquiry should be given an opportunity to be present throughout the inquiry, conduct cross-examination of witnesses and make statements in his or her defence. According to Singh?s submission in court, Prakash was only called for his statements on November 16, 2009 ?over a month after the Court of Inquiry started.
She led a frontal attack on the ?change of heart? of the Army Chief who set aside an initial administrative censure against Prakash to order disciplinary action leading to court martial.
Hinting that General Kapoor was acting under pressure, Singh challenged that she was willing to ?leave the court this very second? if the government could prove that the Chief of Army Staff had ?applied his mind? before deciding to start disciplinary action against his one-time close aide. She referred to Section 123 of the Army Act, saying the provision prohibits ?anyone? to change course from an administrative censure to a disciplinary action, that too, after the suspect military officer had duly responded to the showcause notice?as in the case of Prakash.
Singh said the Bench should call for the records to investigate why the Army Chief changed his mind on January 29, 48 hours after receiving a letter from Prakash in reply to the showcause notice. To this, the court said: ?Why should we call for the records? You cannot expect the Chief of Army Staff to be a slave to an administrative policy drafted by the Army headquarters. He can indeed change his directions. People holding such exalted positions have to suffer these things.?