Union Of India vs Lt. Col Rahul Arora

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a Judge Advocate of lower rank than the accused officer in a General Court Martial is permissible if the non-availability of a higher-ranked officer is recorded in the convening order, as established in Union of India & Anr. vs. Charanjit Singh Gill (2000). The Court found that the High Court erred in setting aside the Armed Forces Tribunal's order, which upheld the dismissal of the respondent based on proven charges under Section 57(c), Section 39(a), and Section 45 of the Army Act. The Supreme Court reinstated the findings of the AFT, emphasizing the validity of the Court Martial proceedings despite the rank of the Judge Advocate.