Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, April 28, 2024

Consider Laying Down Protocol For Receiving Mortal Remains Of Soldiers Martyred In Line Of Duty: Allahabad HC To UP Government

Posted in: Military Law
Mon, Jun 20, 22, 21:08, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5254
Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav v. UP directed the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to consider the framing of a code laying down the protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty, for the funeral rites and any other allied matters.

While according the paramount importance to the supreme honour, dignity and respect of soldiers who get martyred while defending the motherland in the line of duty, the Allahabad High Court most commendably in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav v. State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 23466 of 2022 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 297 that was pronounced finally on June 9, 2022 has clearly, cogently and courageously directed the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to consider the framing of a code laying down the protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty, for the funeral rites and any other allied matters. It cannot be denied that very often we see that the civil administration does not care much for the soldiers who get martyred in the line of duty and their family then are compelled to run from pillar to post to get even what are their basic legal and human rights! Of course, the higher echelons of the State administration like the Chief Minister mostly is simply not aware of how shamelessly the local administration deliberately cock a snook at the family of the deceased brave soldier and cares two hoots for them due to which they face lot of problems and endless woes!

It deserves mentioning that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot also unequivocally underscored that the solemn obligation of the State is to accord full honours to the military heroes who make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the country. The Court also deemed it absolutely fit to sagaciously add in no uncertain terms that:
Duty is cast on a grateful nation to ensure that the patriots do not go unwept, unhonoured and unsung. I am sure that the UP CM Yogi Adityanath who himself deeply respects our brave soldiers will have just no issue in complying in totality with what the Allahabad High Court has laid down so very explicitly, elegantly and eloquently in this leading case! No denying it!

We thus see in this leading case that essentially, the Court was dealing with the bail application of one Vivek Yadav booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 307, 427, 3336, 290, 291, 120-B, 188, 436 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section ¾ of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. The accused was one of the citizens who were vehemently protesting against the callous attitude of the district administration and their failure to observe proper protocol to honour Dhananjay Yadav who was a young serving soldier in the Indian Army and who had fallen in line of the duty while fighting for the nation. This extremely creditworthy, commendable, courageous, cogent, convincing and composed judgment that has been delivered by Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot was the crying need of the hour also!

To start with, this refreshing, robust, remarkable and rational judgment by a single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that:
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2022 at Police Station Chauri-Chaura, District Gorakhpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 307, 427, 336, 290, 291, 120-B, 188, 436 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. The applicant is in jail since 14.04.2022.

As we see, the Bench then aptly points out in the next para of this learned judgment that:
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, on 19.05.2022.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para of this notable judgment that:
Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Dhananjay Yadav, a young serving soldier in the Indian Army had fallen in line of the duty. Disrespect was shown to the martyr by the civil administration. Number of citizens came out to protest against the callous attitude of the district administration and their failure to observe proper protocol to honour the martyr. 56 named and 100 unknown persons were nominated as accused in the FIR. The FIR was lodged only to divert attention from the said failure of the district administration and to stifle the democratic dissent. The applicant has not been identified as the principal offender who inflicted any grievous injuries or caused any damage to public property. He was peacefully exercising his democratic rights to flag the high handed actions and apathy of the local administration. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. The applicant is a young student with a bright future. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

Quite forthrightly, the Bench then concedes in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that:
Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

Needless to say, the Bench then also hastens to add in the next para of this laudable judgment that:
I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

As a corollary, the Bench then finds it in the fitness of things to hold in the next para of this brief judgment that:
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Be it noted, the Bench then mandates in the next para of this brilliant judgment that:
Let the applicant- Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

While adding a caveat, the Bench then propounds in the next para of this extremely commendable judgment that:
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

It is quite reassuring to note that while fully, firmly and finally condemning the use of violence, the Bench then minces no words to hold in the next para of this brilliant judgment that:
Violence has no place in a democratic polity, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Non violence is the creed of democratic protests. Law will take its course against the accused who resorted to violence. However before parting some facts were brought to the notice of the Court which deserve mention. We thus see that the Court strongly condemned the increasing use of violence in our country to pressurize the government to fulfil their demands and made it amply clear that those who resort to violence will not be spared and law will take its own course and the perpetrators of violence would be strictly punished as per the law. Very rightly so!

It is worth noting that the Bench then clearly states in the next para of this learned judgment that:
It is asserted that the mortal remains of the brave soldier who fell in the line of the duty were not received and treated with due State honours befitting a national hero. These are matters of fact which can be ascertained only after due enquiry. The State Government shall cause an enquiry to be conducted into the matter.

Most forthrightly, the Bench then in hindsight deems it apposite to point out in the next para of this remarkable judgment while recalling the past of India that:
A nation that does not honour its martyrs who lay down their lives to protect freedom and preserve the peace, will forfeit its freedom and have no peace. India has known the cost of slavery, and Indians have never hesitated to pay the price of freedom. For the Republic to endure and liberty to survive martyrs have to be revered, and their deeds always remembered.

Most remarkably, the Bench then does not fight shy to say unequivocally in the next para of this refreshing judgment that:
The solemn obligation of the State is to accord full honours to military heroes who make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the country. Duty is cast on a grateful nation to ensure that the patriots do not go unwept, unhonoured and unsung.

Most significantly, the Bench then directs in the next para of this learned judgment that:
The State in consultation with the highest military authorities shall consider framing of a code or regulations laying down the protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty, for the funeral rites and any other allied matters . The exercise is liable to be completed within a period of six months.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in the final para of this notable judgment that:
Copy of this order shall be communicated to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. through Government Advocate for necessary compliance.

All in all, there can be no gainsaying that every Indian must definitely feel proud when our Courts deliver most forthright judgments like this one wherein Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot most vocally laid paramount importance to esteem of brave soldiers who most willingly lay down their lives while gallantly defending their motherland from the onslaught of terrorists and enemy soldiers on the borders! The Court rightly directed the State Government to consider laying down proper protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of the mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty for the funeral rites and any other allied matters. Of course, one can reasonably expect that the incumbent State government led by the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath will also take this extremely commendable judgment in the right spirit and make doubly sure that what all the Allahabad High Court has directed is implemented in totality at the earliest!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi (Retd), A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Ex Lt Gen. Avadhesh Prakash v. UOI has set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed on Ex Lt Gen Avadhesh Prakash by a General Court Martial (GCM). This has certainly shaken the defence establishment and all those who court martialled him as the top court has not just validated
To begin with, it is not at all amazing to see how three stone pelters were gunned down by soldiers just recently who fired in self defence. It is fast becoming a regular phenomenon in Kashmir Valley.
retired soldier of Indian Army and decorated Kargil war veteran Honorary Captain (retd) Mohammad Sanaullah who gave his cream years for this nation has been in a detention centre after a foreigners tribunal in Assam declared him a foreigner
Supreme Court in UOI v/s P.S. Gill that an order convening a General Court Martial (GCM) can be challenged before an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Babita Puniya ordering the grant of permanent commission in 10 non-battlefield services in three months and held them to be eligible to hold command posts.
Lt Col PK Choudhary Vs UOI that the scope of judicial review over matters concerning defence and security is limited. We thus see that the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the government conclusion that use of social media by army personnel enables enemies to gain edge.
Citizens for Green Doon v/s India has allowed widening of three hill stretches in Uttarakhand - Rishikesh to Mana, Rishikesh to Gangotri and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh forming part of the Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna.
Ram Harsh v. UOI that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot and does not oust the High Court’s power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ex. Ct. Mahadev vs Director General Border Security Force that: Accused need not prove the existence of private self-defence beyond reasonable doubt and that it would suffice if he could show that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea, just as in a civil case
UOI vs RK Sharma that Missing from duty is a major misconduct in paramilitary forces or the army.
Major Nishant Kaushik vs UOI that ordinarily, no appeal from a final decision or order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) can lie before the High Court.
Col Anil Kumar Gupta vs UOI that in this case a colleague of Col Anil Kumar (appellant), wrote a letter to his superior on 13.08.2015 in which he alleged that the appellant was sending indecent messages to his wife which were sexually explicit in nature
Shantanu Yadav Rao Hire v.Kerala that the presence of a live cartridge alone that had been seized from the bag of a passenger during the security check at the airport without seizure of any corresponding fire-arm would indicate that there was no ‘conscious possession’ by such passenger
State v Commandant, Air Force Administrative College that was reserved on March 1, 2023 and then finally pronounced on July 20, 2023 has issued a set of most significant guidelines for the Criminal Courts to deal with matters of handing over custody of Armed Personnel.
Navneet Singh Sindhu vs UOIdecided to grant disability pension to a former Short Services Commissioned Officer after very rightly quashing a medical board report for being legally and factually unsustainable
How long will our brave soldiers be sitting ducks for terrorists sponsored directly by Pakistan?
the Lion’s Credit definitely goes to the Central Government led by PM Mr Narendra Modi who is in close touch with the legal team and so also with the family members of the 8 Navy Veterans.
Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched vs UOI the exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction has deemed the discharge/dismissal from service of persons enrolled under the Indian Army as bad in law without the consideration of their explanation.
Top