The Kerala High Court has held that an Investigating Officer can also be appointed as the Prosecutor in a court-martial conducted under the Navy Act, 1957. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John ruled that Regulation 178(3) of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965 is not unconstitutional merely because it permits the Prosecutor to be examined as a witness.
Background
Santosh Karwade, a Navy personnel with 31 years of service, had challenged the court-martial proceedings initiated against him. During the trial, eight witnesses had been examined. Karwade contended that he later came to know that the Prosecutor conducting the proceedings was also the Investigating Officer.
He argued that allowing the same person to investigate the allegations and then prosecute the case affected his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also challenged Regulation 178(3), arguing that it should be declared unconstitutional.
The Single Judge had declined to strike down Regulation 178(3), but held that an Investigating Officer could not be treated as a “suitable person” to act as Prosecutor in the same trial. Both sides challenged different parts of that decision before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench examined the relationship between the Navy Act, Navy Regulations and the general criminal procedure law. It noted that the Navy has a separate procedural framework for court-martial proceedings and that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not govern such proceedings in the same manner.
The Court also considered Article 33 of the Constitution, which permits Parliament to modify fundamental rights in their application to members of the Armed Forces to ensure discipline and proper discharge of their duties.
On Regulation 163(1), the Bench noted that the provision requires the appointment of a “suitable person” to prosecute a case, while Regulation 178(3) recognises that the Prosecutor can be a competent witness. The Court found no provision expressly prohibiting an Investigating Officer from being appointed Prosecutor.
The Bench observed,
“There is no prohibition on an Investigating Officer from being appointed as a Prosecutor.” It further held that such appointment, by itself, cannot be treated as a violation of the right to a fair trial.
The Kerala High Court held that Regulation 178(3) is valid and not ultra vires Article 21. It also rejected the Single Judge’s observation that an Investigating Officer could not be a suitable Prosecutor merely because the officer had earlier investigated the case.
The Court accordingly dismissed Santosh Karwade’s appeal, W.A. No.218 of 2026, and allowed the Union of India’s appeal, W.A. No.2980 of 2025.
The relevant observations of the Single Judge were set aside.
