Pulling rank

The Delhi High Court judgment on air force promotions raises a number of serious issues. The high-level promotion board, working on the basis of a policy approved by the government read ministry of defence had recommended certain air vice marshals to be promoted while not recommending others. By itself this is a normal process in the three branches of the defence services where the pyramid of posts keeps narrowing as you go up the ladder of authority. In this case the posts involved are practically at the highest level of command 8212; just below that of the chief. It is also true that the judgment of the top commanders is what the country relies on for its defence. Thus if the judiciary has found the method or the process of applying that judgment flawed 8212; on the basis of its 8220;arbitrariness and irrationality8230;8221; 8212; then the country should indeed be worried about the system and the people at the very top.

What is perhaps less understood is that while a service promotion board makes recommendations, the government 8212; all the way to the level of the prime minister and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet 8212; is the final authority to approve the proceedings of the promotion board, after its scrutiny by the defence ministry. In many cases factors not necessarily in the service record may have to be taken into account. In the present instance, the Vajpayee government 8212; during whose tenure a chief of naval staff was summarily removed 8212; exercised the required checks and balances. The judgment of the high court would indicate that adequate care has not been exercised at the bureaucratic and political levels above that of the IAF. One also wonders if the aggrieved officers appealed to the Central government about their grievances as per existing provisions.

What this case has also dramatically brought to the fore is the issue of the internal system of the services for redressal of grievances having been seriously dented. No fighting force can undertake its primary task without a sound and self-correcting mechanism to ensure fair play and justice within its ranks. In 8217;92, the Estimates Committee of Parliament had expressed its strong concerns about hundreds of service personnel of all ranks going to civil courts. What we need urgently is a high-level commission to go into the systemic weaknesses in the redressal system that are apparently motivating many serving people to seek justice from the courts instead. One of the tasks of the commission should be to examine the necessity, composition and task of a Defence Services Tribunal, preferably headed by a judge of the Supreme Court, to examine cases of grievances to ensure justice is done and seen to be done.