AFT refuses to stay colonel’s court martial but issues ‘fair play’ directive on witness signatures

The colonel, who was represented in the AFT by advocate Anand Kumar, had sought sweeping reliefs, including summoning the original handwritten records of the GCM evidence, setting aside the typed transcripts for alleged non-compliance with earlier AFT Kolkata bench directions, and ordering a fresh trial.

He also prayed for a general order from the Chief of Army Staff directing all future courts martial to follow the Kolkata bench’s 2014 rulings in the cases of ex-Havildar/Clerk Rajendra Kumar Mishra and ex-Lt Col Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh—rulings that were later upheld when the Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India’s special leave petitions.

The applicant argued that prosecution witnesses’ statements were neither signed by the witnesses nor properly authenticated, violating Sections 78 and 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the Kolkata bench precedent.

The tribunal, however, noted that the same signature issue is already under active consideration before its own Court No 1 and had been examined in related cases, including by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court. Citing the Delhi High Court’s December 6, 2025, judgment in the case of ex-Major General M S Jaswal, the bench clarified that the presiding officer is not required to sign day-to-day proceedings—only the final sentence under Rule 67(2) of the Army Rules.

While refusing the interim stay, the bench issued a limited protective direction: “The respondent authorities … shall ensure that the statements of the defence witnesses … are all duly signed by the witnesses and dated by the witnesses … and the witnesses are directed to sign each of the pages of the said depositions.”

The matter has been directed to be placed before the AFT’s Court No 1 on March 19 for further hearing, given the overlapping issues in the earlier connected case filed by the same officer.

The order comes amid a wider debate within the armed forces legal community over the exact procedure for recording evidence in courts martial. Several officers have challenged the non-signing of witness statements, citing the Kolkata bench’s 2014 judgments, while other benches and high courts have taken a more restrained view, holding that military law does not mandatorily require witness signatures on every page.

The respondents, represented by Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Singh Bhati and Major Abhishek Kumar, had informed the tribunal that prosecution evidence was already complete and opposed any stay. The tribunal has granted them two weeks to file a formal reply to the main petition.

The case will now proceed with the defence phase under the fresh direction on witness signatures, while the larger question of procedural uniformity in GCM evidence recording continues to be examined by the tribunal’s principal bench.