An Analysis Of The Origin And Growth Of The Indian Military Justice System And Its Drawbacks

Abstract

Military justice in any nation refers to a collection of laws aimed at regulating the personnel of the country's armed forces. Each state requires a code of regulations and guidelines for the raising, support, and organization of its military, which may all be viewed as the field of military regulation. The object of the disciplinary code is to guarantee that the desire of the commandant is placed into impact. Military regulation in this way traces its origin to the prerogative force of rulers. The Indian Army, Air Force, and Naval Force in India have special laws formed to govern the Land, Air and Water forces, also known as The Indian Army, Air Force, and Naval Force in India. The purpose of military regulation is to ensure that the trooper is not empowered to get away from the commitments of his country's normal regulation or of global regulation. The three Army, Navy and Air Force Acts are nearly identical, but there are a few differences in the authorities and processes. The Air Force has three kinds of Court Martial - General Court Martial, District Court Martial and Summary General Court Martial. The Indian Army has one kind of court-martial during peacetime and also a disciplinary tribunal during times of war. The Indian Military Justice System has multiple drawbacks that often lose out on the purpose of granting justice and restrict it for the military officials . The Indian Armed Forces have a structure of regulation, standards, and methods called military regulation, which has encountered rehashed modifications and changes. This research slightly touches and compares certain drawbacks of the Indian Military Justice System to the procedures of the USA and UK military forces The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was established in 2007, but it failed to make a mark due to the rigidity of the tribunal and the lack of support from the Government. The AFT has failed to provide adequate verdicts for the cases due to lack of experts in the tribunal, and there is a serious case of the non-execution of the final orders that could’ve granted relief to the complainants.