Military grievance redressal system in need of reforms

Concerned over the increasing number of soldiers posting their complaints on social media, a new grievance redressal mechanism was started in January 2017, wherein soldiers could air their grievances directly to the Chief of the Army Staff through WhatApp messages. This ad hoc system was conditional, as soldiers had to first exhaust existing laid down grievance redressal procedure. The military bureaucracy has been claiming that the existing system is prompt and time-tested; which, in reality, is coercive, biased and marred with delays. No action has been taken by the government to streamline the grievance redressal system contained in the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950 and the Navy Act, 1957.

A military person who deems himself wronged by any superior/commanding officer may complain to the higher authorities for the redress of his grievances. The Regulations of the three services provide different procedures for the processing of complaints. The complaints by the officers are addressed to the Central Government, while that of the other ranks to the respective service chiefs. The intermediate authorities in the chain of command can interview the complainant, investigate the matter and forward the complaint, along with detailed paragraph-wise comments to the next superior authority. The complainant is not informed about the comments of the intermediate authorities on his grievance application. This amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice because the comments furnished by the intermediate authorities to higher authorities are essential to the complainant, so as to enable him to know what has been commented against him/her by the said military authority while forwarding the complaint.

The Regulations of the three services state that the grievance applications are to be processed expeditiously; however, the time-frame for processing is different in the case of each service. In the case of the Army, when the complaint does not contain any accusation requiring investigation, it must reach the Army headquarters (Army HQ) within 225 days. If the complainant has made an accusation requiring investigation, the complaint should reach the headquarters within 255 days. There is no time limit for the Army HQ or the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to give a final decision on the petition; however, informally this has been stated to be six months. In today’s era of email and cell phones, a complainant has to wait nearly 14 months (in some cases even more) to get a final reply on his grievance petition, which is not only distressing, but also worrisome. There have been instances where final decisions on the grievances relating to promotions have been delayed until the complainant retires. The delay often frustrates the complainant, leading to dissatisfaction and demoralisation.

All levels of the military hierarchy are entitled to seek legal advice on a complaint. However, the aggrieved person is not provided with any legal help for preferring his complaint. If the grievance is against the commanding officer or higher military authorities, the affected individual or his family may also face social seclusion and harassment. There have been allegations that those lodging complaints against their military superiors have been transferred to far-flung places, causing harassment to them and their family.

The decision on an application is not required to be a “reasoned” order and it could be conveyed in a brief sentence, such as: “Your application has been rejected by the competent authority as being devoid of merit.”

Stereotype rejection orders reinforce the doubt that complaints are treated arbitrarily and against the principles of natural justice. A judgement that does not give reasons may not be arbitrary in essence but certainly appears to be one. In case the individual affected by the decision desires to go for an appeal, he must have the opportunity to study the reasons on which the original judgement was based, so as to be able to present his counter-arguments in appeal.

In the Army, if a complainant has made an accusation, he/she is required to render a certificate, “I undertake that any false statement or false accusation made by me in this complaint will render me liable for disciplinary action.” In cases of the use of abusive language, misbehaviour and sexual harassment, which may take place in private, it may not be possible for a victim to support his/her accusation with any documentary proof or witness. Then the victim would be liable to disciplinary action based on the certificate rendered with his/her petition.

The unscrupulous processing of a grievance petition damages the effectiveness of a statutory right. This has led to an unusual increase in the filing of petitions by military personnel in the armed forces tribunals and other judicial forums. As the armed forces constitute the most powerful weapon of the executive, the Government must ensure that the grievance redressal system is updated and remains in tune with the times.

The author is a retired Wing Commander. Views expressed are personal.