Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 129 of the Border Security Force (BSF) Rules, 1969, ruling that the non-supply of certified copies of court-martial proceedings before confirmation of a finding and sentence does not, by itself, violate an accused person’s fundamental right to a fair trial.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice M. A. Chowdhary allowed an appeal filed by the Union of India and other BSF authorities, setting aside a Single Judge’s judgment dated April 28, 2022, which had declared Rule 129 unconstitutional and directed the General Security Force Court (GSFC) to resume proceedings from the stage of prosecution evidence.
The judgment was pronounced on October 22, 2026, in LPA No. 107/2022.
The case arose from an incident on November 27, 2017, inside the BSF campus at Bandipora, where Head Constable Chander Bhan was shot dead.
An FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), and the matter was subsequently transferred for trial before a General Security Force Court (GSFC) because the accused, Rovinder Singh, was a BSF constable.
Singh was tried for the alleged murder and an additional charge relating to leaving his designated picket without orders from his superior officers.
The GSFC concluded the trial on March 7, 2020, finding him guilty and awarding life imprisonment and dismissal from service. The finding and sentence were subject to the statutory confirmation process.
During the trial, Singh sought certified copies of the challan, related documents and statements of prosecution witnesses. His request was declined under Rule 129, although the proceedings’ record states that he was not excluded from the trial and retained the right to inspect the record under Rule 120.
Challenging the restriction, Singh argued that access to certified copies was essential for preparing an effective defence, identifying contradictions in witness statements and ensuring a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Single Judge accepted his contention and struck down Rule 129.
The Division Bench, however, held that the right to inspect proceedings and the right to obtain copies are distinct.
It observed that Rule 120 permits inspection at reasonable times, while Rule 129 regulates when copies may be obtained, generally after confirmation of the finding and sentence.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Ex. Flt. Lt. G. S. Bajwa, the Bench held that inspection of proceedings can satisfy the requirements of natural justice and that there is no absolute constitutional right to receive copies at every stage of a specialised military trial.
The court also examined Article 33, which empowers Parliament to modify the application of fundamental rights to members of armed forces to ensure the proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline.
It held that Rule 129 must be read alongside the statutory safeguards governing inspection, review, confirmation and subsequent remedies.
The Bench clarified that its ruling did not determine Singh’s guilt or the merits of the underlying case. It set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and directed the competent authorities to proceed in accordance with the BSF Act, 1968, and the Rules framed under it.
