Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sartaj Muneeb vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Page |1
Sr. No. 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 550/2024 CM(1482/2024) CM(5301/2025)
SARTAJ MUNEEB ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Hussain Dar, Advocate.
Ms. Iqra Rashid Bhat, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI, with
Ms. Beenish, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
31-07-2026
1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought
the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus may be issued, commanding the
respondents to provide the petitioner certified copies of all relevant
documents including the copy of statements of the witnesses, the
proceeding and the judgment of conviction, in order to enable him to
file Appeal before the competent authority.
b. Declare the confirmation of the sentence by the respondents without
giving the petitioner a chance to file appeal as illegal and bad in
law.
c. Declare the Rule 147-A of Army Rules, 1954 ultra vires the
Constitution as the said Rule infringes and abrogates fundamental
rights of the petitioner guaranteed under article 14, 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India.”
2. Mr. Shamsi, learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the respondents, has
submitted that the controversy involved in this petition has already been
settled by judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Page |2
“Mushtaq Ahmad Malik v. Union of India and Ors” [WP(C) No. 1945/2024,
decided on 14.05.2026].
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and I have also gone
through the pleadings as also the judgment delivered by the Division Bench
in Mushtaq Malik‘s case (supra).
4. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this Court, while
upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 147 A of the Army Rules,
1954, has observed that the said Rule is not ultra vires the Constitution. In
view of this position, the prayer claimed by the petitioner vide clause (c)
quoted above, is no longer available to the petitioner as the aforesaid
judgment delivered by the Division Bench is binding on this Court.
5. In the context of the relief claimed vide clause (a) quoted above, it is
to be noted that once Rule 147 A of Army Rules, 1954, is held to be
constitutionally valid, the respondents are well within their powers to
withhold copies of the proceedings, or any part thereof, from the petitioner,
provided that the Central Government certifies that it is against the security
of State. In the instant case, the respondents have placed on record, along
with their reply, a certificate dated 25th May, 2023 issued by the competent
authority, wherein it is provided that, keeping in view the best interest of
national security, the Central Government has certified denial of supply of
proceedings of Summary General Court Martial to the petitioner or his
counsel.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Supreme Court has, in the case of “V.K. Singh vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr“, SLP (Crl.) No. 19493-19494 of 2025, decided on 18th
Page |3
May 2026, held that the competing interests of the right to a fair trial of the
accused and national security & sovereignty has to be balanced, as such,
supply of documents cannot be denied to an accused merely on the ground
that the provisions of Official Secrets Act, 1923, have been invoked against
him.
7. I am afraid the ratio laid down in the judgment relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case, as the
same relates to the provisions contained in the Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.,
read with provisions of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. It is in
the peculiar circumstances and facts of the said case that the Supreme Court
has held that supply of documents cannot be denied to an accused merely
because provisions of Official Secrets Act, 1923, have been invoked in the
case.
8. In the present case, the situation is entirely different. We are dealing
with a case where the petitioner has been denied the record of proceedings
by invoking provisions contained in Section 147 A of the Army Rules, 1954,
which stands on a different pedestal. The question whether it was actually in
the interest of security of the State to deny the material to the petitioner
ordinarily cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power of
judicial review. Even otherwise, the instant case relates to the killing of an
Army personnel on the basis of information leaked by certain Army
personnel including the petitioner to the militants across border. Therefore, it
would have been highly prejudicial to the security of the State to provide the
documents to the petitioner in the instant case. Therefore, the respondents
have rightly invoked the provisions of Rule 147 A of the Army Rules, 1954,
to deny the access to the petitioner to the relevant material.
Page |4
9. Having regard to the fact that the issues raised in the present case are
squarely covered by ratio laid down in judgment delivered by the Division
Bench of this Court in Mushtaq Malik‘s case (supra), the present petition is
bound to fail. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
31-07-2026
Junaid
