ACT PREJUDICAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE

Nearly 75% of sailors have experienced “defaulter” in their long naval career. Defaulter is nothing but a summary trial where in charges are framed, heard, and order passed. Its is a procedure which has all the trappings of a court but wherein other than the codified Navy Act, everything tries to be legal.

And nearly all of the “defaulters”, one charge always concerns “good order and naval discipline”. It is that one scale which measures everything. It is one magic stick which can be used anywhere. And it is one penal section which can be applied to anything which is not covered. And most of time, it is used arbitrarily, at whims and fancies of charging officer and for most unusual and most common seemingly non-criminal acts.

It has been evoked for offences such as ‘coming late for PT, having mud on shoes, speaking loudly, wearing goggles, not shaving more than once in a day if beard has grown again by evening, forgotten to salute the passing flag car, using mobiles on quarterdeck, not wearing helmet while driving, jumping queue, talking rudely to lady etc

The offence is covered under section 74 of the Navy Act, 1957 and reads as

74. Every person subject to naval law who is guilty of an act disorder, or neglect to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline, not hereinbefore specified, shaft be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned.”  

However, the Bombay High Court said in “Commander Ranvir Kumar Sinha vs UOI (1991)” said following about Good Order:

32 …..The words “good order and naval discipline” are nowhere defined. The concept incorporated in this section has been taken from English law. Therefore, the Court should go by the concept as understood in English law. Counsel has referred us to paragraph 430 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 41, 4th Edition. In the commentary it is stated that in some instances though not in all, the state of mind of the accused i.e. the existence or absence of mens rea is a relevant consideration; e.g. where the particulars of the charge alleged that he behaved improperly, the prosecution must prove that he know at the material time that his behaviour was improper.