Army act & bail

it should be defenitely changed,even though,civilian liberties cannot be considered essential for the smooth functioning of defence forces,timely reforms are needed,especially at a time even police persons are permitted to form unions/associations.

Army personnel has to be governed under Army rules only as nature of their duties demand, we can not afford to have civilian rules in Army. An armed forces person is a disciplined solider of nation and is ready to sacrifice his life when his duties demand so.

If we are really concerned about them, provide them and their families with honor, respect and all other facilities in life and not to become jelious by compare ourselve with their facilities, salary and perks, which we all Indians are habitual of dooing.

In National intrest let Army personnel manage their house themselve and not to raise such useless issues and creat discipline problem for the Arrmy authorities.

Capt Sukhdev Singh

Mumbai

They form a class of their own and it is better that they manage their own affairs as per AA and AR.

Capt Sukjhdev Singh's response is far away from the query. Questin of Haridas Mandalis whether bail provision should be there or not for the accused arrested under Army Act.  Capt Sukhdev Singh said that "An armed forces person is a disciplined solider of nation and is ready to sacrifice his life when his duties demand so." true then there should be some honour for him he is not worse than a pickepocket who gets bail easily. There is no seperate consituition for Armed Fiorces, Army /Navy and Air Force Act are promulgated by the same parliament which is there in the country from the constitution. 

I do not agree with what Capt. Sukhdev Singh is saying. Without understanding the deeper aspects of the game, he is merely scratching the surface. Rather uttering what some vested interests always want everyone to believe.

Author of this thread has a raised an important point and question i.e. why double standards? If we study the political history of this country and read the Constitution with an analytical mind, we will find probably vested interests have injected double standards at various places in Constitution to safeguard their interests.

It is said that after the British left, some people who were "transfered" power by British wanted to pursue the same policy of British i.e. to always suspect and subdue the people of this country with force but maintain an impression of democracy under Constitution. This needed a mercenary army with no consciense of its own that could be used against its own population.  If we note this, it is not surprising why the freedom fighters of Indian National Army of Netaji were not absorbed in Indian Army after independence? Because they they had revolted because they had conscience and love for their country and its people. Having human consciense and love for the country and its people did not fit in the requirement of trigger happy mercenary army. They were not even recognised as freedom fighters for pension, till mid seventies when most of them had reached old age and were about to die.

How could this(having mercenary army that can impose martial law in a democracy!) be achieved and done? Read Articles 33 and 34 that injects "exceptions" to Part III of the Constitution below to understand. Everything is self explanatory:

33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.—Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to,—
(a) the members of the Armed Forces; or
(b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or
(c) persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or
(d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c),
be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them

34. Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial law is in force in any area.—Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, Parliament may by law indemnify any person in the service of the Union or of a State or any other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area within the territory of India where martial law was in force or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered or other act done under martial law in such area.

I think it is now clear for everyone to understand that the Army Act flows from of Article 33 so that martial law described in Article 34 may be implemented without problems.

"An armed forces person is a disciplined solider of nation and is ready to sacrifice his life when his duties demand so."  all participant in this debate are agree to the above.

All will also agree that  a solider of nation can not be compared with a pickpoket, a thief, a criminal or a politician, who after committing even a serious crime manage to get bail and continue dooing the same acts outside the jail. Experts of law are standby in their service and bail is readily available to them. Armed forces can not afford to have people of this categoery in service.

Capt Sukhdev Singh

What Capt. Sukhdev Singh is saying is his personal imaginary opinion. The facts and truth are different. Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution speak for themselves. Everyone can understand the real intention and meaning behind these Articles. Also apply your mind why the soldiers of British Indian Army who had joined Indian National Army of Netaji were not absorbed back into Indian Army after independence. What was the problem? Was it to teach them a lesson for revolting against British rule? Was it to make them example for everyone in the Army? Pakistan Government had no problem absorbing soldiers of Indian National Army into Pakistan Army, what was the problem with Indian Government?

"An armed forces person is a disciplined solider of nation and is ready to sacrifice his life when his duties demand so." Adarsh society.....?

Dear Sir,
The question here is not as to why the soldiers of British Indian Army who had joined Indian National Army of Netaji were not absorbed back into Indian Army after independence.
The question here is about bail to an Army person of today's India, who being in service  commits an offense against the Army act.

Regards

Dear Sir, I am also explaining the same thing with reference to the historical facts, realities and manifestations that were precursors to the creation of Articles 33 and 34 of the Constituion. Unless we understand the complete picture it sometimes becomes difficult to grab the truth about the problem.

Now for the question put forth by the author of this thread, armed forces persons can forget about bail till either one of the things happens:

(1) Article 33 is thrown in the dustbin by Parliament

OR

(2) Parliament amends the law to allow armed forces personal to get bail.

Till either (1) OR (2) happens, we can keep discussing on forums.

Can anyone enlighten me with the names of the countries that do not have provisions similar to Articles 33 and 34 in the Constituion and countries that have provisions similar to Articles 33 and 34?

I think its all about Holy Cows and Holier than thou Scripters which forbids all inclusive holistic growth of anation. Colonial hangover in the Armed Forces is profoundly visible. One Capt Sukhdev Singh howsoever well intended he may( poses to be) is not going to change the situation. The issue therefore is to change for the better.At one hand we are trying to be proactive (Annaism) for the larger interest of our thrieving democracy on the other hand showcasing Scam Tainted all imported at exhorbitant costs to the nation our Military Toys during day long Republic Day celebration. We are literally confused. The issue of not having provision of Bail for Indian Citizen in Uniform is one such issue which aptly highlight  that confusion.