Introduction
This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and India, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, defendants’ rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar labels can conceal different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary, approximate ranges are provided. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, and appeals. The analysis proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by brief force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a concluding sources section for further verification.
United States Military Law
The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside the immediate command chain, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.
India Military Law
India’s framework rests on three principal service statutes: the Army Act 1950, the Air Force Act 1950, and the Navy Act 1957, with procedures contained in corresponding rules and regulations. Criminal jurisdiction over persons subject to these Acts includes Summary, District, and General Courts-Martial, convened under statutory authority. Prosecutorial and judicial functions are supported by the Judge Advocate General’s Department, which advises convening authorities and the court on law. Appeals and post-trial redress follow a mixed track: the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) hears service matters and acts as the primary forum for challenges to findings and sentences of courts-martial, subject to limited oversight by the Supreme Court of India on questions of law. Ordinary crimes without a service nexus may be tried in civilian courts under the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, depending on statutory allocation and custody rules. Defendant rights include access to a defending officer or civilian counsel, rules on evidence generally aligned with the Indian Evidence Act, and review mechanisms through statutory petitions and tribunal proceedings. When forces are deployed abroad, competence is allocated by domestic law and status of forces arrangements.
Comparative Analysis
Both jurisdictions employ statute-based systems under civilian authority, yet they diverge in institutional design. First, forum structure differs. The United States maintains a complete criminal courts-martial system with a dedicated military appellate ladder culminating in CAAF, while India retains permanent courts-martial under service Acts and channels challenges to the AFT, integrating judicial review with the national court system through the Supreme Court’s limited oversight. Second, prosecutorial independence is organized differently. The United States centralized charging for specified serious offenses within the independent OSTC, positioned outside local command chains for covered crimes. India continues to rely on convening authorities under the service Acts, with legal supervision from the JAG Department; prosecutorial decisions occur within the statutory command framework, tempered by tribunal and constitutional review. Third, judicial leadership and integration vary. U.S. military judges are uniformed judge advocates, and appellate review largely remains within the military judiciary before possible Supreme Court access. India’s model embeds military adjudication in service courts but routes most post-trial litigation to the AFT, which sits within the broader administrative-judicial landscape and is subject to Supreme Court scrutiny on substantial legal questions. Fourth, rights frameworks are articulated differently. The United States codifies Article 31(b) advisements and applies the Military Rules of Evidence, mirroring federal criminal procedure. India provides representation by defending officers or counsel, applies evidence and procedure rules adapted from general law, and affords statutory petitions plus tribunal review as layered safeguards. Finally, jurisdictional allocation abroad is handled in the United States through the UCMJ’s global reach and status of forces agreements, while in India it is governed by service Acts, deployment regulations, and bilateral arrangements determining primary forum and custody.
Conclusion
The United States and India rely on statutory frameworks to administer military justice but allocate functions through distinct channels. The United States operates a bespoke court-martial system with service appellate courts and CAAF, complemented by independent prosecution of defined serious offenses via OSTC. India employs service courts-martial under the Army, Air Force, and Navy Acts, with post-trial challenges concentrated in the AFT and ultimate constitutional oversight by the Supreme Court of India. These arrangements pursue discipline and fairness through different institutional paths. Findings reflect law and publicly available information as of October 2025. This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Brief Military Force Overview
United States: As of October 2025, the United States fields approximately 1.3 to 1.33 million active-duty personnel across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard. Military expenditure for 2024 is approximately 997 billion USD.
India: As of October 2025, India fields approximately 1.45 to 1.50 million active personnel across the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, with the Indian Coast Guard under the Ministry of Defence for maritime law enforcement. Annual defense spending is approximately 80 to 95 billion USD depending on methodology and exchange-rate treatment.
Estimated Number of Military Attorneys
United States: Approximately 4,600 to 5,000 active-duty judge advocates serve across the services as of October 2025, distributed among the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
India: Publicly available sources do not provide reliable figures for the number of military judges, judge advocates, or prosecutors. The estimate reflects broad secondary analysis as of October 2025.
Sources and Method
- Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial, United States.
- Offices of Special Trial Counsel, official U.S. Department of Defense and service materials.
- Army Act 1950, Air Force Act 1950, Navy Act 1957, and corresponding Rules; Government of India publications.
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and AFT procedural materials; selected Supreme Court of India jurisprudence on military justice.
- Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Indian Evidence Act as applied to service members.
- Ministry of Defence, Government of India, public releases on force structure and expenditure; SIPRI summaries on defense spending.