Kerala High Court Affirms Dual Role for Investigating Officers in Navy Court-Martial
The Kerala High Court has delivered a pivotal verdict, asserting that an officer tasked with investigating a case against Navy personnel can also serve as the prosecutor in the same court-martial proceedings. The decision was made on Friday by a Division Bench comprising Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John. The Bench clarified that the Navy Regulations do not explicitly prohibit such an arrangement, thereby upholding the appointment of an investigating officer as a prosecutor does not infringe upon the right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The case, Union of India & ors v Santosh Karwade & anr, revolved around appeals filed by the Union government and a naval officer, Santosh Karwade, contesting a 2025 judgment from a single judge Bench of the Kerala High Court. Karwade, a veteran of 31 years in the Navy, faced a court-martial under the Navy Act, 1957, on charges including the alleged dishonest persuasion of an officer to transfer ₹1.10 lakh. Karwade argued that his right to a fair trial was compromised because the officer who investigated him was also appointed as the prosecutor.
Controversy Over Regulation 178(3)
Karwade’s legal challenge centered on Regulation 178(3) of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965. This regulation permits a prosecutor to serve as a competent witness, which Karwade claimed contravenes basic criminal law principles and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
The single judge Bench previously refused to declare Regulation 178(3) unconstitutional. However, the Bench did interpret the term ‘suitable person’ in Regulation 163(1) to mean that an investigating officer should not prosecute the same case they investigated, as it would undermine the fairness of the trial. This interpretation was challenged by the Central government in its appeal.
Division Bench’s Rationale
The Division Bench, disagreeing with the single judge’s interpretation, emphasized that court-martial procedures for Navy personnel are governed by the Navy Act and its specific regulations, not by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Bench highlighted that these regulations form a distinct legal framework for matters concerning Navy personnel, including procedures for investigation, trial, and evidence recording.
The court referenced Article 33 of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to curtail or modify the application of fundamental rights for armed forces members to ensure discipline and duty performance. It concluded that Regulations 163 and 178 do not explicitly prevent an investigating officer from being appointed as a prosecutor. The court further noted that Regulation 178(3)’s provision for a prosecutor to be a competent witness does not render it unconstitutional.
Therefore, the Division Bench overturned the single judge’s view that a prosecutor must be independent. It clarified that the prosecutor’s role is limited to presenting evidence to the court-martial, which ultimately decides the judgment or sentence. Thus, the prosecutor does not need to be an independent authority but must be competent to prosecute the case.
Consequently, the court dismissed Karwade’s appeal while upholding the Union government’s appeal. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General P Sreekumar and central government counsel Suvin R Menon, with Advocates Yeshwanth Shenoy and Aysha Abraham representing Karwade.
