UNION OF INDIA vs PURUSHOTTAM

The Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the Deputy Judge-Advocate General in setting aside the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings against Havildar Purushottam were unauthorized, as they did not comply with the statutory requirements under Section 162 of the Army Act, 1950. The Court emphasized that the reviewing authority must be a senior official as specified in the Act, and the Deputy Judge-Advocate General's intervention constituted a usurpation of power. Consequently, the Court reinstated the SCM's decision, affirming the reduction in rank imposed on the Respondent for extortion under Section 53(a) of the Army Act, 1950.