A Few Good Men: In conversation with Advocate Navdeep Singh

Navdeep Singh is an advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, practising mostly on the Writ and Constitutional side, and specializing in military law and service matters..He is also the founder President of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association at Chandigarh and is very actively involved in issues relating to soldiers’ rights and tribunalisation. Navdeep Singh is also a member of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War at Brussels and writes extensively on military, legal and public interest issues..Navdeep Singh spoke at length to Bar & Bench’s Murali Krishnan. Below are the excerpts..Territorial Army: Major (Former) Navdeep Singh.Every profile about Navdeep Singh should ideally begin with this unique side to him..Navdeep Singh is a former Major and has been a national service volunteer-reservist with the Territorial Army in the past. He has voluntarily served in counter-insurgency and operational areas during the vacation period of the High Court..He has been decorated with ten Commendations from the Army & the Air Force for his efforts towards reform of the social causes of service-members and military veterans. In Singh’s words:.“The Territorial Army is a voluntary army for people who are engaged in other occupation or profession. It is not a source of employment, it does not provide people a source of livelihood. The concept is that for a few days in a year, you wear the uniform so that in case of an emergency or war you can be around for the nation..Initially, I used to spend about two months in a year, later on about two weeks. I used to be mobilised in various parts [of the country] and served in counter insurgency operations and also during Operation Parakram, which was notified in the aftermath of the Parliament attack.”.Tribunalisation: The unending battle .Navdeep Singh’s stance against tribunalisation is well known. He has no doubt that tribunalisation, as it exists today, amounts to circumventing the independence of judiciary..“It is a tacit takeover of judicial function by the executive because most of the tribunals, except perhaps the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, are functioning under parent administrative Ministries. These tribunals have to pass orders against the very same Ministry under which they are functioning.”.Besides these, the tribunal is dependent on the parent administrative ministry for all facilities and infrastructure..“This is not the case with just the AFT, but with other similarly situated tribunals. So there is a complete conflict of interest.”.Navdeep Singh also thinks that the issue is not receiving enough attention..“I also feel that there has not been much focus on this issue. Except perhaps Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who has really tried to bring in a change and is still trying his best, I don’t find anyone who is concentrating enough [on this issue]. We hear voices here and there.”.Tribunals should not become “post-retirement hubs”.Navdeep Singh also says that tribunals should not become a resort for retired bureaucrats and judges..“Tribunals should exist only to deal with issues where a high degree of technical expertise is needed, not in other general areas of law. Regular courts should be strengthened to deal with such general areas of law..Even the High Courts should have a more stable roster. Subject matters should be appended with the roster for a year or two so that High Court Benches automatically become de-facto specialised courts. Then tribunals won’t be required.”.Article 226, AFT: “Shri Kant Sharma totally contrary to L Chandra Kumar”.The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma has virtually made AFT the final court in military matters. The judgment took away the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Since the statutory appeal to Supreme Court comes with the rider that it should have a “point of law of general public importance”, Navdeep Singh is of the opinion that there is no appellate remedy at all..Contrary to popular perception, there is no appeal at all from the AFT and the AFT becomes the first and last court for all matters..“In fact, there is no appellate remedy at all now. There is no remedy to the Supreme Court also. Section 31 of the AFT Act provides no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court, except in points of law of general public importance, or if the Supreme Court finds that a question is so exceptional that it ought to hear it. So contrary to popular perception, there is no appeal at all from the AFT and the AFT becomes the first and last court for all matters.”.Navdeep Singh minces no words when he says that the judgment in Shri Kant Sharma is contrary to the decision in L Chandra Kumar..“If a civilian files a case in the Central Administrative Tribunal and he loses a case, he can go to the High Court which provides a very accessible and affordable remedy. If he is still not satisfied, he can go to the Supreme Court. .However, in case of the AFT, if a person loses a cases there is nowhere he can go. Even if he crosses the threshold of ‘point of law of general public importance’, or is able to convince the Supreme Court that there is an exceptional question involved, the remedy in Supreme Court is inaccessible and unaffordable for a common person. .It is very difficult for a disabled soldier who is fighting for a monthly disability pension of Rs.1,000 or a widow who is sitting in Kerala or Bengal to first engage a lawyer in Supreme Court and then try to convince the Supreme Court that the case involves a ‘point of law of general public importance’. .So it is a disaster in that it makes justice inaccessible and is totally contrary to the judgment in L Chandra Kumar and other cases.”.Government attitude towards disabled soldiers.Navdeep Singh was part of a Committee of Experts constituted by the Defence Minister for reducing litigation and resolving service and pension related policy disputes in the Defence Services. The Committee rendered its recommendations on November 24, 2015 and the same is currently under consideration by the Centre. Navdeep Singh is positive that their recommendations will yield desired results..“I am really hopeful because both the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister are very keen to bring down litigation against soldiers. Interestingly, there was a report by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy as per which out of 1,000 direct appeals filed by all Central government departments, 890 were filed by the MoD. .And more than 90 percent of appeals filed by the MoD were against disabled soldiers. MoD was clogging the dockets at the Supreme Court. In between, the appeals decreased with the current Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, but again, perhaps, there are vested interests who want the litigation to increase in the Supreme Court.”.He is also of the opinion that men in uniform are at the receiving end of justice dispensation system more often than not..“I say with pride that Indian Forces are not offence services, they are defence services. I also feel that the military justice does not conform to the Constitutional norms of separation of powers. Hence, in certain situations, soldiers get much harsher punishment than what they deserve..Sometimes, because of the fact that things get highlighted in the media or to give the impression to the public that soldiers are also punished, they are awarded much harsher punishments than what they would have been awarded had they been prosecuted on the civil side. So, I absolutely disagree when people say that men in uniform can get away with anything and go scot- free.”.“Don’t live on the miseries of disabled soldiers and war widows”.Navdeep Singh’s concern for the military community and their families is evident..“I would only say that all stakeholders in the system should understand that we, the lawyer community or the government or anyone else, should not live on the miseries of disabled soldiers and war widows. .They deserve full respect, let us not force them to litigate. Litigation in cases of disabled soldiers or war widows should be minimal. Accessible and affordable remedy to the High Courts should be made available.”.He also makes it clear that the interpretation of the Rules is the real villain..“The surprising aspect is that the rules of the MoD are very liberal and accommodating. But the interpretation by the executive authorities is morbid and totally literal. They stick to the letter of the Rules rather than the spirit of the Rules; that is causing litigation..It is a matter of shame that most of the litigation of MoD is against disabled soldiers..Disabled soldiers the world over are granted adequate care and respect and sensitivity when it comes to applying laws and rules, but in India it is the opposite. It is a harsh reality and it is a matter of shame that most of the litigation of MoD is against disabled soldiers. Despite best efforts by Defence Minister and Prime Minister, things have not been brought under control.”.The winning experience.Navdeep Singh has fought and won many cases for military personnel, disabled soldiers and war widows..The experience, according to him, is “very satisfying”..“If you are honest to the profession and if there is passion towards the profession and compassion towards your fellow beings, it is a wonderful profession. It is the only profession where you can do things for the society at a cutting edge level..Winning such cases, not just for soldiers but even for other citizens, in cases involving public interest, makes this profession is very satisfying.”.The author.Navdeep Singh has authored four books. His first work Fauj hai Mauj is “less of a book and more of a collection of jokes”. His second book was Soldiers Know Your Rights. It was co-authored with advocate Rajiv Anand and deals with rights, benefits and privileges available to the military community and their families. He has also written Pension in the Defence Services and Maimed by the System..“The fourth book is closest to my heart. It contains real life stories of people – disabled soldiers, war widows – who had to fight the system. When I wrote that book, I had sincerely hoped that I would not have to write such a book again. But I think I was wrong. Things are improving, but it will take some time.”