Military law

In special circumstances when the army takes control of a country's judicial system, then the rules which are effective are called military law or martial law. Sometimes a martial law is put in that area after winning the war or winning any territory. For example, martial law was applied in Germany and Japan after World War II. Apart from this, a martial law is applied even after the coup is over. Sometimes a martial law is applied even when a huge natural calamity occurs (but most countries apply emergency in this situation.)

Curfew has special laws under martial law. Often, a tribunal of the army is appointed to give justice under Marshall Law, which is called Court martial. Under this, rights such as the prison directive petition are suspended. introduction

Meaning of military law On one hand, it is the admission of the authorities that a situation has arisen in the country or region especially when it is necessary to face strength with strength, therefore, there should be such abnormal rights in their hands, For the duration of the period, it can be done in the internal zones of the country, in place of the order of executive or military administrator in place of the courts, That recognition is obtained. On the other hand, military law is the idea of ​​a legal suffix, by which the civil courts have tried to control the extraordinary rights which are acquired by the executive to enforce the citizens of the state.

In this way, military law, military law (military law), which is a special law for the control of the Armed Forces, is different. When the armed forces are employed for the use of civil rights, the army performs its functions only under the control of civil officers and criminals are considered in the ordinary courts. But the rights of civil officers and courts are postponed in military law and criminals are prosecuted before a military commission.

The emperor does not have the right to declare the emperor in England, but at the time of the war, the executive gets the privilege of circulating many provisions and commands under parliamentary legislation and according to the relevant Acts. Nevertheless, those rights are used in the double control of the Legislature and the Court.

In the US law, where is the President authorized to declare military law independent of the Congress action, and in which case the legislature and the courts can be controlled by it, it is still a matter of controversy and in this case Legal status is still unclear.

In the absence of a clear constitutional directive in India, it is controversial that who is the official of the military law declaration. The mention of military law is only in the 34th section, which after the military law lifted in a particular area, arranges the Act of Indemnity.

But similar to military law, the President has the right under section 359 (1), so that he may postpone the judicial execution of rights under sections 21 and 22. It is understood that this is essentially a form of military law, but it seems that the Supreme Court has left it for a dispute (A IR 1964), whatever the opinion should be adopted in this regard, the constitution The effect on the fundamental rights of the announcement of the crisis under section 352 is similar to the military law in modest amounts. Thus, under constituency 358, till the crisis prevails, the executive has the right to violate the provisions of Section 19. Under the Article 359 (1), the other fundamental rights can be postponed till the crisis period or till the period mentioned in the order.

There is only control over the authority of the President that the announcement of the tribunal should be presented before Parliament for acceptance. There is no definite period to present this declaration before the Parliament and if there is no presentation, there is a provision of penalties, but after two months of the dissemination of the announcement, it automatically expires. There is no restriction on the President to issue a second declaration on the expiry of an announcement. The President's order issued under section 359 (1) should be presented to the Parliament as early as possible. Decision making time for this presentation has been left on the executive, because even if the order of the President is not presented before Parliament, its effect does not diminish nor there is a law of legal action in the absence of submission.

During the Chinese invasion of 1962, the President had announced the crisis in the constitution by postpone the execution of the 14, 21 and 22 streams of the Constitution. Even after the situation became very common, there was a lot of public criticism when excessive delays were made in cancellation of the declaration. This fact has shown the need to put some more protection in relation to the crisis of power, because if this is not the case, then any unwise executive can end the constitution by permanently eliminating the constitution for its convenience. We have not forgotten that Weimar Constitution of Germany, in which according to various types of tips were taken to allow the legal regime not to be permanent. In India, it would not be advisable to be indifferent to such possibilities. Also see them

wiki