Union of India & Ors. Vs Parashotam Dass (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered a batch of matters concerning the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The principal issue before the Court was whether orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal are amenable to judicial review by High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that this question had arisen in several matters after the coming into force of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, enacted to establish an independent adjudicatory forum for service matters of members of the armed forces.
The Court observed that the establishment of the Armed Forces Tribunal followed longstanding concerns regarding delays in service-related litigation involving defence personnel. The Act provided a specialised forum to decide service matters and appeals arising from courts-martial. However, after its implementation, disputes arose regarding the availability of judicial review by High Courts over Tribunal decisions.
The private parties contended that there could be no complete bar on the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which held that judicial review under Article 226 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that decisions of tribunals remain subject to such jurisdiction. They further argued that Article 136(2) bars direct special leave petitions to the Supreme Court against tribunals constituted under laws relating to the armed forces, while Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act permits appeals to the Supreme Court only where a point of law of general public importance is involved. According to them, many service disputes are personal in nature and would otherwise leave litigants without an effective judicial remedy. They also relied upon Section 14(1) of the Act, Article 227(4) of the Constitution, S.N. Mukherjee, and Rojer Mathew, contending that the restriction under Article 227(4) relates only to the High Court’s power of superintendence and does not curtail judicial review under Article 226.
