Why fight during training cost this Indian Army recruit his entire military career

4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jun 8, 2026 04:51 PM IST

Madras High Court was dealing with a plea of former Indian Army trainee challenging his dismissal. (AI-generated Image)

Madras High Court Army news: Noting the maintenance of discipline in the military, the Madras High Court has upheld the dismissal of a former Indian Army recruit, dismissed from service following a physical altercation with a fellow trainee, and said that he was a probationer and could have conducted himself with utmost care.

Dealing with a plea of a former Indian Army recruit, a division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and R Poornima said that he was only undergoing training, and he was more like a probationer, and during this period, he ought to have conducted himself with utmost care, but he got into an altercation with a fellow recruit.

“Of course, when an accused pleads guilty and if the sentence is disproportionate, there can definitely be a judicial review of the same. But we have to bear in mind that we are concerned with the maintenance of military discipline. The considerations are different,” the court said on June 1.

Justices G R Swaminathan and R Poornima said that we did not find any sufficient ground to interfere in favour of the petitioner.

The order added that there might have been some provocation for the same, but that did not entitle the petitioner to inflict a grievous injury (fracture on RT mandible) on a fellow recruit.

‘He could have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment’

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents, we are of the view that interference is not warranted.

It is for more than one reason. The writ petitioner had not even been formally admitted to the armed forces.

When charges were framed against the petitioner, the petitioner did not plead any mitigating circumstances.

On the other hand, he pleaded guilty. Once the petitioner pleaded guilty, the authority was left with the discretion to award an appropriate sentence.

The Deputy Solicitor General of India would contend that, considering the nature of the act committed by the petitioner, he could have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The authorities did not do so.

They took a lenient view and chose to restrict the punishment of dismissing the petitioner from service.

Of course, when an accused pleads guilty and if the sentence is disproportionate, there can definitely be a judicial review of the same.

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal also did not deem it fit to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

In the exercise of judicial review, we did not find any sufficient ground to interfere in favour of the petitioner.

Case of altercation during military training

The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on December 19, 2016, and was undergoing basic military training. On April 12, 2017, an altercation occurred between the petitioner and a fellow recruit. The victim sustained grievous injuries (Fracture RT mandible), and he complained to the superior authorities.

In this regard, a court of inquiry was held against the petitioner on May 5, 2017, and two charges were framed against the petitioner. First, that without sufficient cause, failing to appear at the place appointed for duty, and, second, that an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

When the petitioner was questioned, he pleaded guilty to both charges. He only sought pardon and undertook not to repeat such acts. However, the summary court martial was of the view that the petitioner’s conduct was not in consonance with military discipline and hence, awarded the sentence of dismissal from service of order dated January 10, 2018.

Story continues below this ad

Following the dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal vide order dated August 5, 2019.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a plea before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench, Chennai. In August 2023, the AFT dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed this petition before the high court.

Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives.

Expertise

Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties.

Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience.

Academic Foundations:

Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute.

Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More

Tags:

Army

Indian army

military