- Justices Vikram D. Chauhan and Anjani Kumar Mishra, in the case of Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others (2021), ruled that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act cannot limit the powers granted by the constitution. The authority granted by Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is exceptional and discretionary in spirit, and its fundamental powers cannot be limited by law.
- In this case, a dissatisfied sepoy brought the petition to the Hon'ble Court for his issue with the Tribunal's judgment on his request for interest on pension and retiral dues arrears, which was objected to by the Union of India, claiming that the Petitioner had a statutory alternative option of filing a plea under Sections 30 and 31 of the 2007 Act.In response to the objection, the Petitioner contended that, although an alternative remedy of filing an appeal with the SC was available, due to his unfortunate circumstances, the forenamed remedy would be fruitless in the facts and circumstances of the case.
- The Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, passed by Parliament, provides for the adjudication or trial by the AFT of disputes and complaints relating to commission, appointments, enrolment, and conditions of service. It may also allow for appeals resulting from orders, findings, or sentences of courts-martial convened under the above mentioned Acts, as well as matters connected with or incidental to them.
- Section 30 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 talks about applying petitions to the SC that are Subject to the terms of Section 31, the Tribunal's final decision or order may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
- Article 226 enables the HC to issue directives or writs to any person or authority, including the government (in suitable instances), including writs in the form of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, or any of them.
- In a similar case, Union of India vs. Brigadier P.S. Gill, the Supreme Court examined the procedure for appealing to a final judgment or order issued by the Tribunal. The Court also ruled that the parties must acquire special authorization to dispute the Tribunal's order before the higher Court.
- By stating the aforementioned acts and sections, the Hon'ble HC ruled that judicial review is part of the essential framework of the constitution and that, in light of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the HC does not lose its judicial review competence under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the ability of the HC to seek judicial review of the order of the lower Tribunal in any way.
- The Hon'ble HC dismissed the argument made by the Petitioner, which stated that since he was an old individual suffering from numerous age-related diseases, he could not reach the Supreme Court; since no significant medical certificates or documents were submitted by the Petitioner favoring his claim. The Petitioner has also failed to provide specifics on the diseases for which he sought assistance from this Court. Furthermore, the Court stated that the SC has been operating virtually for a long time, so the Petitioner is authorized to approach the Supreme Court from the comfort of his own home via the Internet. Thus, the Petitioners ‘claim stands invalid.
- The Hon’ble HC held that just because a provision exists that does not indicate an appeal may be filed based on the Petitioner's preferences. Under the AFT statute, a methodical procedure must be followed for judicial review.
- As a result, the writ petition was dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
