In November 1955, whilst the Navy Act was still under consideration, the Government decided that after the passing of the Navy Act, the Army and Air Force Acts should also be amended to:

(a) Achieve uniformity in punishments for similar offences in the three services.

(b) Achieve uniformity in restrictions on fundamental rights and

(c) Conform to naval court martial procedure, under which an acquittal by a court martial could not be set aside.

Difficulties were encountered in implementing uniformity of punishments for similar offences under the three Acts. A Special Committee comprising the Joint Secretaries of the Ministries of Defence and Law and the Judge Advocates General of the three services was set up in Jun 1965 with the following terms of reference:-

(a) To study thoroughly the historical background of disciplinary cases of the three services, the difficulties encountered, the codes of other democratic developed countries, their experiences, etc.

(b) To draft a Unified Code in order to rationalise the three service Acts, taking into consideration the developments in criminology and penology and also the fact that members of the Armed Forces would, in due course, come from more educated and politically conscious classes.

To assist in drafting the unified code, a Sub Committee was set up, consisting of the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy and Air Force. The Sub Committee held 178 meetings and the Special Committee held 35 meetings to consider various sections of the draft. In Feb 1970 a draft Unified Code was finalised and sent to the Law Ministry for vetting.

In view of the divergence of opinion between the three services in respect of certain controversial provisions of the draft Unified Code, the matter was placed before the Chiefs of Staff Committee. An ad-hoc Armed Force Unified Code Cell was established in 1972 to redraft the Code. The redrafted Unified Code was completed by January 1978.

When this draft was considered by the three Service Headquarters, the following criticisms were raised:-

(a) The Code was not really unified. It was more a compendium of the existing service laws.

(b) The Code was not really progressive. The progressive features of the Codes of other democratic countries did not find place in the draft code.

(c) About 13 years had been taken in drafting the Code and a further delay of of 8 to 10 years could be envisaged.

(d) The Code was more complicated than the existing Army, Navy and Air Force Acts and may not be understandable by lay service personnel for whom it was really meant.

(e) The revision of the existing Service Acts was being delayed on account for the Code which was meant to replace the Acts.

After considering these aspects, it was recommended to the Chiefs of Staff Committee that:-

(a) The three service Acts should be suitably amended so as to make them as progressive and uniform as possible, considering the Government directive of 1955.

(b) The decision whether to progress the Draft Unified Code or abandon it be considered after the work of modernising the three service Acts had been completed.

The Chiefs of Staff agreed that the three service Acts and the statutory rules should be amended before a decision was taken on the Draft Unified Code.