The Delhi High Court has ordered that periodic mandatory training be provided to the officers conducting proceedings before the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) under the Border Security Force (BSF) Act and Rules.
A bench consisting of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur noted that the Court had encountered a number of cases in which the SSFC proceedings had been conducted in a sloppy and superficial manner, disregarding the rules and procedures.
“It is also noticeable that despite the lack of urgency, SSFC procedures are carried out routinely in almost all cases. The provisions on other types of security forces Courts that require more complex legal proceedings are only very rarely used,” the court said.
It states that any deviation from the rules and established procedure during the trial not only affects the rights of the accused but also leads to grave injustice, especially in cases where trials for misconduct by members of the armed forces end with the imposition of a severe punishment in the form of dismissal from service.
“It is therefore the duty of the officers conducting the SSFC procedures to be adequately trained and sensitised about the manner in which the SSFC procedures should be conducted i.e. by giving due consideration to the rules and procedures laid down in the BSF Act and BSF Rules,” the court ruled.
It stated that the chairmen of the SSFC negotiations must understand that the trials are not mere formalities, but that they are a fundamental aspect of ensuring justice and maintaining discipline in the force through compliance with due process.
“Presiding officers must be made aware of these issues in order to safeguard the rights of the accused as well as the obligation of the police to uphold the rule of law and maintain the highest standards of discipline within their ranks. Failure to do so would only result in a miscarriage of justice, both for the individuals and the police,” it said.
The court made these observations while allowing a petition filed by a BSF constable against his dismissal from service in January 2022.
He was convicted based on his alleged “guilty plea” for his alleged role in smuggling Phenesdyl from Bangladesh to India. He also sought reinstatement into service with all the benefits to which he is entitled.
The court found that the proceedings before the SSFC were conducted in an “extremely sloppy” manner and that the commander, as chairman, had prepared the minutes in advance.
The court found that all pages of the testimony had been pre-typed, leaving only a few blanks to record the police officer’s response as to whether he wished to plead guilty or not guilty.
“Although the plaintiff seriously contests this, it is evident that even if we were to accept the defendant’s confession and assume that he pleaded guilty, the procedure prescribed in section 142(2) was not followed in letter and spirit. As a result, the recording of the confession was a mere formality. We seriously doubt whether the plaintiff understood the contents of the charge and its implications as well as those of his confession,” the court said.
The Court ruled that the SSFC’s proceedings, including the imposition of dismissal from The services assigned to the police officer have been devalued.
“We direct the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff into service with all the benefits consequent thereon from the date of his discharge, i.e. 19.01.2022. However, taking into account the nature of the charges against the plaintiff, we grant the defendant the liberty to conduct a de novo trial and order that the contract must be concluded within three months,” the court ordered.
Title: RAJNEESH v UNION OF INDIA
Click here to read the order
