The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh’s amendment to the Jammu and Kashmir General Rules (Civil), 1978, through the insertion of a dedicated chapter titled “Suits by or against the soldiers,” marks a significant step forward in harmonising India’s judicial process with the operational realities of its armed forces. At a time when thousands of soldiers serve in some of the most inhospitable and strategically sensitive terrains, particularly in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, this amendment underscores a much-needed institutional empathy for the armed forces, who remain the nation’s first line of defence.
Military service, by its very nature, demands undivided commitment, geographical mobility, and often prolonged deployments in remote and high-conflict zones. In such circumstances, expecting a soldier to comply with the regular timelines and physical appearances mandated in civil court procedures is not just unrealistic but, frankly, unjust. As a result, many soldiers have historically been denied timely justice or, worse, seen court decisions passed in their absence-through no fault of their own, but purely because their call of duty superseded personal legal battles.
The newly introduced legal safeguards serve as a corrective mechanism to this long-standing imbalance. It is commendable that the High Court has acted under its powers derived from Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in consultation with the Lieutenant Governor. This move not only upholds the dignity of soldiers as equal citizens under the law but also offers targeted legal interventions that recognise the special conditions under which they serve.
One of the most significant inclusions in this amendment is the legal recognition of the use of a Power of Attorney. By allowing soldiers to authorise someone to represent them in court and exempting such PoAs from court fees, the amendment simplifies access to justice. This measure acknowledges that while soldiers may not be physically present in courtrooms, their right to legal representation and a fair hearing must remain protected. The rules also provide protections against civil actions, such as arrest for debt recovery or seizure of pay and equipment-reinforcing provisions already laid out under Sections 28 and 29 of the Army and Air Force Acts. This protection is vital, especially for personnel posted in operational zones or active field conditions. Equally important is the emphasis on time-bound disposal of cases involving service personnel. Courts have been instructed to prioritise cases where the litigating soldier is on temporary leave. Moreover, the judiciary has been empowered to grant further extensions of leave and communicate directly with military units, thereby fostering a coordinated civil-military administrative process. The amendment’s provision that suspends proceedings if a soldier is not adequately represented during special or war conditions-until such a time that representation is possible-is a legally and morally sound principle. It aligns with the Indian Soldiers’ Litigation Act, 1925, and ensures that justice is not sacrificed on the altar of rigid timelines. A particularly sensitive inclusion relates to succession certificate proceedings, where courts are advised not to unnecessarily summon soldiers serving in special conditions.
This amendment is not merely procedural-it is an act of systemic respect. In a UT like Jammu & Kashmir, which hosts a large number of army personnel, these new rules will bring immediate relief and ensure the soldiers’ civil rights are not eroded due to their absence in courts. They defend the nation in the harshest of conditions-granting them these limited procedural relaxations is not a concession but a rightful acknowledgement of their service. As India marches toward becoming a more just and equitable society, laws and institutions must evolve to account for the diverse challenges faced by different classes of citizens. The armed forces are not just another profession; they are the shield behind which civil society flourishes. The judiciary’s sensitivity in this matter sets a progressive precedent. The integration of empathy with legal reforms is the hallmark of a mature democracy-and this amendment reflects precisely that.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
