Impracticability, 'Impracticability' is a concept different from 'impossibility' for while the latter is absolute, the former introduces at all events some degree of reason and involves some regard for practice. 'Impracticable' presupposes that the action is 'possible' but owing to certain practical difficulties or other reasons it is incapable of being performed, Major Radha Krishan v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 3091 (3093): (1996) 3 SCC 507.
The meaning of the term 'impracticable' in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. In Major Radha Krishan case ((1996) 3 SCC 507: 1996 SCC (L&S) 761.) the Supreme Court has held: 'When the trial itself was legally impossible and impermissible the question of its being impracticable, in our view cannot or does not arise. 'Impracticability' is a concept different from 'impossibility' for while the latter is absolute, the former introduces at all events some degree of reason and involves some regard for practice. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary 'impracticable' means not practicable; incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command. 'Impractic-able' presupposes that the action is 'possible' but owing to certain practical difficulties or other reasons it is incapable of being performed. The same principle will equally apply to satisfy the test of 'inexpedient' as it means not expedient; disadvantageous in the circumstances, inadvisable, impolitic. It must therefore be held that so long as an officer can be legally tried by a Court Martial the authorities concerned may, on the ground that such a trial is not impracticable or inexpedient, invoke Rule 14(2). In other words, once the period of limitation of such a trial is over the authorities cannot take action under Rule 14(2)', Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, AIR 2001 SC 1772: (2001) 5 SCC 593