https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184026 Mandatory procedural safeguards in a summary court-martial must be strictly followed: failure to inform the accused of the presiding officer and members, and to invite objections under Section 130, went to jurisdiction and vitiated the proceedings. The participation and prior involvement of the commanding officer also created a reasonable apprehension of bias, assessed from the standpoint of a fair-minded observer, and further invalidated the trial. A person serving rigorous imprisonment did not cease to remain subject to Section 41(2) of the Indian Army Act, and that contention failed. Judicial review could also interfere where the punishment was outrageously disproportionate; on the facts, the sentence was struck down as disproportionate. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 13:03:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184026 Mandatory procedural safeguards in a summary court-martial must be strictly followed: failure to inform the accused of the presiding officer and members, and to invite objections under Section 130, went to jurisdiction and vitiated the proceedings. The participation and prior involvement of the commanding officer also created a reasonable apprehension of bias, assessed from the standpoint of a fair-minded observer, and further invalidated the trial. A person serving rigorous imprisonment did not cease to remain subject to Section 41(2) of the Indian Army Act, and that contention failed. Judicial review could also interfere where the punishment was outrageously disproportionate; on the facts, the sentence was struck down as disproportionate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184026