https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187870 The Supreme Court held that a court-martial's punishment of dismissal should not be interfered with merely because it appears severe. Once the court-martial had jurisdiction, was properly constituted, and the charges were proved, the choice and quantum of punishment lay within its domain under the Army Act, 1950. Section 72 permits award of the prescribed punishment or a lesser punishment, but does not require a lesser sentence in every case. Judicial review on proportionality applies only in extreme cases where the sentence is perverse, irrational, or shocks the conscience; the facts here did not justify interference, so the High Court was wrong to set aside the dismissal. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:25:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187870 The Supreme Court held that a court-martial's punishment of dismissal should not be interfered with merely because it appears severe. Once the court-martial had jurisdiction, was properly constituted, and the charges were proved, the choice and quantum of punishment lay within its domain under the Army Act, 1950. Section 72 permits award of the prescribed punishment or a lesser punishment, but does not require a lesser sentence in every case. Judicial review on proportionality applies only in extreme cases where the sentence is perverse, irrational, or shocks the conscience; the facts here did not justify interference, so the High Court was wrong to set aside the dismissal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187870