Habeas corpus limits against court-martial convictions remain confined to jurisdictional error, not reappraisal of correctness.

A petition challenging a General Court-martial conviction raised alleged non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, the admissibility of a confessional statement, and the treatment of a defence witness. The Delhi HC stated that habeas corpus cannot be used to re-examine the correctness of a conviction by a competent court-martial unless a jurisdictional error is shown, and that Article 226 does not enlarge that limited review. It also noted that a spouse may have locus standi to seek habeas corpus, though standing for certiorari was not finally decided. The petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the legality of a conviction and sentence imposed by a duly constituted court-martial could be examined in habeas corpus or certiorari proceedings under Article 226, and whether an alleged non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950, vitiated the conviction and detention; (ii) Whether the subsequent addition of charges 5 and 6 rendered the court-martial proceedings invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the legality of a conviction and sentence imposed by a duly constituted court-martial could be examined in habeas corpus or certiorari proceedings under Article 226, and whether an alleged non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950, vitiated the conviction and detention.

Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of error and does not ordinarily enable the High Court to sit in appeal over a conviction recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction. The power under Article 226 may extend to examining whether the court-martial had jurisdiction and whether there was a jurisdictional defect, but not to correcting mere procedural irregularities. Rule 15 was held to contemplate only a preliminary inquiry by the Commanding Officer to see whether a prima facie case existed for further action and custody beyond forty-eight hours. Even if the procedure at that stage was imperfect, it did not affect the jurisdiction of the court-martial or the validity of the later trial and conviction. The alleged non-observance of Article 21 did not assist the petitioner because the procedural lapse complained of was not of such a character as to make the detention unlawful.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Rule 15 and Article 226 failed. The conviction and detention were not vitiated on the ground of the alleged procedural irregularity.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent addition of charges 5 and 6 rendered the court-martial proceedings invalid.

Analysis: The charges framed at the stage of inquiry under Rule 15 were not final. The operative charge-sheet was the one on which the accused was arraigned before the court-martial, and that charge-sheet could be amended under Rule 48 before the examination of witnesses if the interests of justice so required. The addition of charges at the earlier stage therefore did not by itself invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection to the addition of charges 5 and 6 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition disclosed no ground for interference with the court-martial conviction or the resulting detention, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 226, the High Court may examine only jurisdictional defects or violations that invalidate the authority to proceed, but it cannot quash a court-martial conviction for mere procedural irregularities at a preliminary inquiry stage that do not affect jurisdiction or the validity of the trial.

---