Armed Forces Tribunal: powers and jurisdiction
Powers and Jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal
Jurisdiction:
The AFT has jurisdiction over all service matters and disputes relating to commissioned officers, junior commissioned officers, other ranks, and ex-servicemen of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
It deals with disciplinary matters, appeals, and grievances related to conditions of service, promotion, pay, pension, and other service benefits.
The tribunal exercises powers similar to a civil court for the purpose of summoning witnesses, examining documents, enforcing attendance, etc.
It can also entertain appeals against court-martial sentences.
Powers:
The tribunal has original and appellate jurisdiction.
It can quash orders passed by the armed forces authorities if they are found to be illegal, arbitrary, or without jurisdiction.
It can award compensation for unlawful actions.
The tribunal can enforce fundamental rights of armed forces personnel subject to reasonable restrictions.
Detailed Explanation of Four Important Case Laws Related to Armed Forces Tribunal
1. Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
(Though predating the AFT, this case is fundamental in understanding service jurisprudence)
Facts: The Supreme Court held that service conditions and disciplinary matters are subject to judicial review but with a degree of restraint, especially in armed forces due to their unique discipline requirements.
Significance: Established that civil courts and tribunals can intervene in service matters only if there is a violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights.
Relation to AFT: The AFT was created to reduce the burden on civil courts and provide specialized expertise while balancing discipline and justice.
2. Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India (1994)
Facts: The Supreme Court ruled that armed forces personnel have fundamental rights under the Constitution, but these can be subjected to "reasonable restrictions" in the interest of discipline and national security.
Significance: This case laid down that tribunals like AFT must uphold constitutional rights but can regulate them according to military discipline.
Relation to AFT: The Tribunal must ensure service conditions don’t violate constitutional rights unjustifiably.
3. Union of India vs. Ram Avtar (2005)
Facts: The Supreme Court ruled that armed forces personnel are entitled to fair trial and natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and courts can interfere where these rights are denied.
Significance: Reaffirmed that military discipline does not mean arbitrary actions; judicial oversight is necessary.
Relation to AFT: Supports the role of the AFT in protecting service members’ rights while respecting armed forces discipline.
4. Major General Rajender Singh Virdi vs. Union of India (2017)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the dismissal order passed by the Army under the Army Act.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the AFT has the power to interfere with orders passed under the Army Act if such orders are found to be arbitrary or violate the principles of natural justice.
Significance: Affirmed the scope of AFT’s judicial review powers over disciplinary actions, strengthening the tribunal’s role.
Relation to AFT: Confirms that AFT is not just a rubber stamp but has real authority to correct injustice.
5. Lt. Col. Manohar Lal vs. Union of India (2019)
Facts: A disciplinary action was challenged on the ground of procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.
Judgment: The AFT quashed the disciplinary order, stating that proper procedures must be followed, and principles of natural justice are sacrosanct even in military discipline.
Significance: Reinforces the principle that the Armed Forces Tribunal ensures fairness and legality in military service matters.
Relation to AFT: Demonstrates how the tribunal protects service personnel from unlawful administrative actions.
Summary:
The Armed Forces Tribunal plays a crucial role in balancing the need for military discipline with the rights and protections due to service personnel.
It exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction over service matters.
The tribunal follows the principle of judicial review, ensuring that orders and disciplinary actions are not arbitrary, illegal, or violative of natural justice.
The case laws discussed highlight the importance of fundamental rights, fair trial, and judicial oversight in armed forces service matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments