DATE OF JUDGEMNT:
20/01/2022
BENCH:
JUSTICE Ms. ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA AND JUSTICE Mr. VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: RAM HARSH
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
SUBJECT
The Allahabad High Court has stated unequivocally that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 can’t and doesn’t preclude the High Court from exercising its judicial review powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
OVERVIEW
- The Court acknowledged that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act was implemented to do something for the dispute settlement and concerns relating to commissions, consultations, registration, and terms and conditions of employment in individuals who belong to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, and the Air Force Act, 1950 by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
- Section 4 of the Bill established the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had the same authority as a civil court when it comes to trying a case.
- The provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act no 55 of 2007 allow for a submission of the plea to the Supreme Court against an order issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
- The Judge made it clear from the beginning that the Court's inability to use its judgment did not imply that it lacked authority.
- It said that judicial review is integral of the Constitution's central core, and that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not lose its judicial review power at the expense of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.
- The High Court's ability to seek legal oversight of a tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution is not limited or limited in any way. Article 226 of the Constitution provides for an exceptional and voluntary recourse.
LEGAL PROVISION
Armed forces tribunal act, Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed forces tribunal start, Article 226
ISSUES
Whether the armed forces tribunal act can curtail the high court’s jurisdiction of power over judicial review
JUDGEMENT
- The Court made it obvious that the Court's inability to use its judgment does not imply that it lacks jurisdiction.
- It said that judicial review is inherent of the Constitution's central core, and that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not lose its judicial review power in the form of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. The High Court's ability to seek judicial review of a tribunal's decision under Article 226 of the Constitution is not limited or limited in any way.
- Article 226 of the Constitution provides for an exceptional and extraordinary remedy. Considering this, the Court held that the power granted by Article 226 of the Constitution must be utilised objectively given evaluating the plaintiff's claim that the legal process established by the Armed Forces Tribunal Act is ineffective in the characteristics and facts of the crime.
- The court further stated that Plaintiff had not submitted any medical certificates in favour of his petitions, nor had he drawn any documents to the Supreme Court's attention that show he is not fit and healthy to do so.
- The plaintiff had also failed to specify the nature of the illnesses for which he or she was requesting court assistance. It was also clear that the plaintiff had not shown a basis for skipping the remedy of plea in the writ petition, nor had he established any documentary proof that his medical condition prevented him from travelling to New Delhi.
- The plaintiff in this case claimed to be an elderly individual suffering from various age-related diseases who was unable to reach the Supreme Court. The High Court, on the other hand, rejected the argument for the same.
CONCLUSION
The discussions took place while the Tribunal was adjudicating on a writ case brought under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution by a retired sepoy (cook) in the Indian Army who was offended by the Tribunal's judgement and sought interest on pension and retiral dues lags. The Union of India objected to the plea, claiming that the plaintiff had a legal alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Sections 30 and 31 of the 2007 Act.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
