‘Indian Army Is Conservative, Homosexuality Unacceptable’: How Gen. Rawat Showed Army Hasn’t Caught Up With Time

An Indian Army soldier was last week arrested for killing four fellow soldiers in Punjab’s Bathinda.  

Earlier on April 12, four Indian Army personnel were shot dead in Bathinda military station in their sleep in the early hours of morning. A stolen rifle and 19 bullet casings were recovered from the spot, reported The Tribune at the time. The rifle was reported missing on April 9.

After the soldier was arrested, reports surfaced that he killed his fellow soldiers as they abused him sexually. The case has therefore reignited conversations on homosexuality and sodomy in the military — particularly in the Indian military where homosexuality remains criminalised despite the Supreme Court decriminalising it in 2018. 

Late General Bipin Rawat, as Chief of the Army Staff in 2019, said that homosexuality remains “unacceptable” and the Army remains a “conservative” institution that has not modernised. 

Here we explain what Rawat said, what military law says on homosexuality, and why the military does not follow the Supreme Court order on homosexuality. 

What did Gen. Rawat say?

In January 2019, General Bipin Rawat said that the Indian Army remains a conservative institution and homosexuality is unacceptable in it. He was the Chief of the Army Staff at the time. Later, he was appointed as India’s first Chief of Defence Staff as well. 

Rawat’s comment addressed both homosexuality and adultery, both of which were decriminalised by the Supreme Court in 2018.

Speaking at the annual press conference of the Army chief, Rawat said the Army would not allow such acts to take place in the Army.

He said, “In the army these are not acceptable. We will still be dealing with them under various sections of the Army Act.

“Gentlemen, the Army is conservative...We have not modernised, neither westernised...We can still take action against people but we will not allow this to perpetrate in the army. This cannot be allowed to happen. It is a very serious matter.”

However, Rawat said that the Indian Army is certainly not above the Supreme Court, but he also noted that certain rights applying to regular citizens don’t apply to armed forces personnel.

“We are not above the country’s law, but in the Indian Army when you join it, some of my rights and privileges that are authorised to you by constitution are not authorised to me...There are some issues where we are different...we are not above the Supreme Court,” said Rawat, as per The Economic Times.

How can military prosecute homosexuality?

The three military services run on respective service-related acts, namely Army Act, Navy Act, and the Air Force Act. 

In the Indian Army, homosexuality can be prosecuted under multiple sections of the Army Act. 

Any act “with a manner unbecoming” of an officer’s position and the “character expected of him” can result in him being recalled from service, according to Section 45 of the Army Act, 1950.

Meanwhile, Section 46 (a) states any person guilty of forms of disgraceful conduct of “a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind” will face up to seven years in jail upon conviction by court-martial. Moreover, Section 63 pertains to actions considered “prejudicial to good order and military discipline”, although it is not specified.

Why does the Indian Army not follow the Supreme Court order?

In the landmark Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India (2018) case, the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality. However, the Indian military continues to ban it as it is governed by its own set of laws. 

As late General Rawat said, while the Indian Army is not above the Supreme Court, certain rights with the general population do not apply to the Indian Army. He was not making a rhetorical point but was actually citing a constitutional provision. 

Article 33 of the Constitution says that fundamental rights of armed forces personnel can be limited as per law made by the Parliament. This means that Army Act, Navy Act, and Navy Act can restrict several freedoms that civilians otherwise enjoy. 

Article 33 says the “Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights” are applicable to armed forces personnel. It further says their rights can be “restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them”.

Some of the freedoms not extended to the armed forces personnel because of Article 33 are freedom of speech, right to form associations, right to be members of trade unions or political associations, right to communicate with the press, right to attend public meetings or demonstrations, notes M Laxmikanth in his book Indian Polity. 

Laxmikanth further notes that the provision covers combatants as well as non-combatant members of the armed forces, which cover police forces, paramilitary forces, intelligence agencies, and other related services as well, and not just the military. 

Though the Indian Army can legally deprive its personnel of the relief under the Supreme Court order, the merit of such deprivation has been questioned. 

“The Indian Army has a robust mechanism to enlist recruits and an equally strict code to regulate their in-service conduct. There is no problem in subjecting homosexual soldiers to the same rigors. The problem, however, lies in altogether denying the chance. The change, therefore, should come from within. The Indian army’s aim of modernization should not only be restricted to weapons but should also extend to its outlook and perceptions,” notes Ankit Gupta in the paper Indian Army And Homosexual Soldiers for The Journal of Indian Law and Society.