M A I N   N E W S

Bhatnagar found guilty
To be dismissed from service
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 9
A General Court Martial has found Major Maneesh Bhatnagar of the 5th Parachute Battalion guilty of violating good order and military discipline during Operation Vijay in the Kargil sector in 1999 and sentenced him to dismissal from service. The court, however acquitted him on the more serious charge of disobeying lawful command while on active service.

The sentence has been sent to the convening authority for confirmation.

The 29-year old officer had been facing trial on two charges, the first of wilful disobedience of a lawful order given by a superior officer at field during active service and the second of an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. While the court found him not guilty of the first charge, he was sentenced on the second charge.

This has brought to an end one of the most controversial courts martial in the Army’s history, which saw heated arguments, acrimonious scenes and mudslinging amidst allegations by the accused that the trial was a farce and he was being made a scapegoat to cover up failures of higher commanders. It had also generated wide public interest on account of the issues brought up by the defence.

Reacting to the court’s verdict, defence counsel Capt Rajneesh Bansal said that Bhatnagar has been punished for speaking the truth. He added that the court proceedings had been conducted in a vindictive manner and the High Court had already been moved in this regard.

The trial, presided over by Col Vinod Malik, deputy commander of an artillery brigade at Leh, had commenced on January 5. The accused, who, according to documents presented before the court today, had an exemplary service record, had been under close arrest since then.

The first charge, under Section 41 of the Army Act, stated that on June 15, 1999, Major Bhatnagar, while performing the duties of company commander, when ordered by Commander 80 Brigade, Brig Devinder Singh to attack Point 5203, showed unwillingness to perform the said task by stating, “My company, including myself, is unfit for an attack operations and can at best undertake occupation of a defensive position,” or words to that effect.

The second charge under Section 63, said that when ordered by the Brigade Commander to attack Point 5203, “improperly” stated that he and his company were unfit for attack and could only undertake defensive operations.

In relation to the first charge, the court observed that the projection made by Major Bhatnagar to the Brigade Commander that he and his men were unfit, did not amount to wilful disobedience of orders.

On the second charge, the court was of the opinion that in view of the critical situation prevailing at that time, as well as the fact that the same body of troops, with some adjustments, took part in an offensive launched on the said point later, the remarks of the accused under such circumstances amounted to an act prejudicial to good order and discipline.

During the course of arguments, the defence had contended that there was no merit or any trace of evidence in the case against the accused and even the prosecution witnesses had deposed in favour of the defence.

In respect of the second charge, the defence had contended that it was the legal and moral duty of the accused to project the state of his troops to his superior officer and there could be nothing “improper about it”.

Further, the brigade commander under whom the accused was functioning had not initiated any complaint against the accused.