Reforming India's grievance redress system

In India, the fundamental rights of the members of the Forces (Armed Forces and the Central Paramilitary/Armed Police Forces) are restricted by Article 33 of the Constitution to ensure the proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline among them. They are denied the right to be members of trade unions or associations, to attend political meetings and to communicate with the press. The State has, however, bestowed on them the right to make complaints seeking the redress of their grievances. The provision for the redress of grievances is contained in the Army Act, 1950 and is similar in the other two services. The Regulations of the three services, however, provide different procedures for the processing of grievance petitions; thus, damaging the effectiveness of a statutory right.

Shortcomings in the grievance redress system are as follows:

Inordinate Delays: The time-frame for processing of a grievance petition is too long, and is different in the case of each service. For instance, in the case of the Army, when the complaint does not contain any accusation requiring investigation, it is required to reach the Army headquarters within 135 days. If the complainant has made an accusation requiring investigation, the complaint should reach the headquarters within 180 to 195 days. Moreover, the Regulations do not provide any time-frame for the Army Headquarters or the Central Government to give its final decision in the matter. The length of time taken in giving a decision also causes significant distraction to the affected persons and their peers. When it takes a long-time to resolve a grievance petition, members may also feel that the complaint is not being taken seriously. This can cause discontent at unit level and the delay in the finalization of a complaint frustrates the very purpose of the system.

Faulty Processing: During the processing of a complaint, the complainant is not informed about the comments of the section commander and intermediate authorities on his grievance application. In the case of Union of India v. Maj Gen Arun Roye (2008), the Calcutta High Court opined: “…non-furnishing of comments of the intermediate authorities to the complainant who lodged the statutory complaint is tantamount to violation of the principles of natural justice. This is because the comments that are furnished by the intermediate authorities to the Central Government are essential to the complainant, so as to enable that person to know what has been commented against him/her by the said military authority while forwarding the complaint to the Government.” 

Decision is not ‘reasoned’: 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. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has held that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The rejection of a grievance, in the absence of any reasoning, indicates either that the authority did not listen or that it took an arbitrary decision. For reasons of transparency, a judgement must assure that appropriate care has been given while taking the decision, and that outcome is not the result of improper motives. The reason given for a judgement plays a significant role in demonstrating that the person concerned has actually been heard.       

Coercive Provisions: In the Army, if a complainant has made an accusation in the grievance petition, 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 under section 56(b) of the Army Act, based on the certificate rendered with his/her petition, where maximum punishment could be up to 5 years of imprisonment. This often deters the victim from seeking redress and makes the statutory right meaningless. Similar provisions do not exist in the regulations of the Navy or the Air Force.

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

Increasing number of court cases: There has been an unusual increase in the filing of writ petitions and civil suits by the men in uniform, which demonstrates a gradual erosion of faith in the grievance redressal system in the Forces. The large number of cases that have come up before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the superior civil courts in recent years show that the grievance redress system of the defence forces has not only been moving at a very slow pace, but has also not been able to satisfy the aspirations of men in uniform.

The situation forces a military person to go to the AFT or to a High Court/Supreme Court to seek justice after having tried the ‘unjust’ redressal system. She/ he is forced to fight legal battles against his superiors and the government for ‘just’ rights: be it related to promotion, pay-fixation, nepotism, discrimination, sub-standard appointments, violations by his superiors, or for an entitled disability pension. In 2017, the AFT imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on a Vice Admiral for inflating his son-in-law’s annual confidential reports while spoiling the ones of his fellow officers. In 2023, the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal issued a bailable warrant against the Additional Director General, Personnel Services, Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), and the Integrated Principal Financial Adviser, Army Headquarters, for non-compliance of order relating to the payment of arrears of pension.

A military person must be able to submit a grievance for redressal without fear of retribution from higher authorities. He must not have any fear of reprisal from those who he is complaining against even if they are his seniors. The system must be absolutely non-punitive and there must not be the slightest perception or even a shred of doubt in the mind of the individual that he would be “punished” for making a complaint. John Rawls (1971) in The Theory of Justice has said: “Justice is the first virtue of institutions. Institutions, no matter how efficient and well arranged, become weak and dysfunctional if they are perceived as unjust. To achieve its objectives successfully, the administration of justice and dispute settlement must be accepted as authoritative and legitimate, and it must also be seen as fair.”

Capt S W Roskill (1964) in The Art of Leadership,states (p. 136): “It is my belief that the Captain and Commander of ship should both encourage their juniors to come to them with their ideas and their problems, and even with their grievances and complaints. It is often the case that a junior officer may see something that is being done wrongly, and which may have escaped his senior’s attention. It is only right that he should be given an opportunity to express his views; and if they are rejected, their reasons should be explained. If the grievances are bottled up discipline will suffer---probably through the irresponsible talk among junior officers already condemned. Merely to be given an opportunity to state a grievance goes a long way towards eliminating it…. Nor should a senior officer ever hesitate to admit errors, or even to make an apology, if he feels there is justice in a complaint against himself.”

The senior military commanders may claim that they have a time-tested, well-established and transparent mechanism to address complaints. In reality, the system has serious shortcomings. If the grievance redressal system in the military was so effective and time tested, as claimed by the military authorities; the government would not have established the AFT in 2007. There is a need to replace the existing grievance redressal machinery with a vibrant system under which every person can take up his redressal for grievance without fear of higher authorities. Though such measures will draw tremendous opposition from the higher military authorities, the Government must understand that respect for the human rights of members of armed forces would be helpful in remedying certain malaises like stress, suicides, fragging, and shortage of personnel, which we are facing today. The hostile environment in which the armed forces operate today demands better protection of the rights of the military personnel. Fault is in the ‘legal system’ and it can be remedied only by amending the procedure contained in the Regulations. Any ad hoc remedial measure would be ineffective. If the internal grievance redress system of an organization is effective, most problems can be resolved in-house and there would be no need for employees to go to the AFT and courts to seek justice.