Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal against a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court which held that special appeals (intra-court appeals) against orders of a single judge in matters related to Armed Forces personnel are not transferable to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The appellant, Balkrishna Ram, contended that the AFT substitutes the High Court and thus such appeals should be transferred. The Court examined Sections 14 and 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Section 14(1) vests the AFT with jurisdiction in service matters but expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. Section 34 provides for transfer of pending suits or other proceedings from any court including a High Court to the AFT. The Court held that the term 'other proceedings' does not include intra-court appeals like Letters Patent Appeals or Special Appeals. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away. The AFT is not a substitute for the High Court in exercising writ jurisdiction, and High Courts retain the power to judicially review AFT orders. Therefore, special appeals against single judge orders in Armed Forces matters must be heard by the High Court and not transferred to the AFT. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court.
Headnote
A) Armed Forces Tribunal - Transfer of Pending Cases - Section 34, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Interpretation of 'other proceedings' - The term 'other proceedings' in Section 34 does not include intra-court appeals (such as Letters Patent Appeals or Special Appeals) against orders of a single judge of a High Court. Such appeals are not liable to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal and must be heard by the High Court. (Paras 2-12)
B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Basic Structure - The power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be ousted or excluded by legislation. The Armed Forces Tribunal does not substitute the High Court in exercising writ jurisdiction, and High Courts retain the power to judicially review orders of the Tribunal. (Paras 10-12)
C) Armed Forces Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Section 14, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - The Tribunal exercises jurisdiction in service matters but expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. The Tribunal is not vested with the power of the High Court to hear intra-court appeals. (Paras 3, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal against an order of a single judge of a High Court deciding a case related to an Armed Forces personnel pending before the High Court is required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. It held that special appeals (intra-court appeals) against orders of a single judge in Armed Forces matters are not liable to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal and must be heard by the High Court. The term 'other proceedings' in Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 does not include such appeals.
Law Points
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act
- 2007
- Section 14
- Section 34
- Transfer of pending cases
- Intra-court appeals
- Letters Patent Appeals
- Special Appeals
- Judicial review
- Basic structure
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 131/2020 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6999 of 2017)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court regarding transfer of pending cases to the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought a declaration that special appeals against single judge orders in Armed Forces matters should be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Filing Reason
Dispute over whether an intra-court appeal against a single judge order in a case related to Armed Forces personnel should be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or heard by the High Court.
Previous Decisions
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India vs. Ram Baran held that 'other proceedings' in Section 34 include Letters Patent Appeals. This was doubted by another Division Bench in Nand Kishore Sahoo vs. Chief of Army Staff, and the matter was referred to a Full Bench, which by majority held that special appeals are not transferable.
Issues
Whether the term 'other proceedings' in Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 includes intra-court appeals (Letters Patent Appeals/Special Appeals) against orders of a single judge of a High Court.
Whether such appeals are required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Armed Forces Tribunal substitutes the High Court in matters governed by the Act, and therefore intra-court appeals should be transferred to the Tribunal, relying on Union of India vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma.
Respondent (Union of India) supported the Full Bench decision that such appeals are not transferable.
Ratio Decidendi
The Armed Forces Tribunal does not substitute the High Court in exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The power of judicial review of the High Court is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted. Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, when read with Section 14, does not provide for transfer of intra-court appeals against single judge orders to the Tribunal, as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over such appeals.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 14(1) of the Act ... provides that the Tribunal shall exercise ... all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters.
Section 34 ... states that 'every suit', or 'other proceedings' pending before any court including a High Court ... shall stand transferred on that day to the Tribunal.
The Legislature has clearly not vested the AFT with the power and jurisdiction of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution.
We ... hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure.
Procedural History
The matter originated from a dispute in the Allahabad High Court. A Division Bench in Union of India vs. Ram Baran held that 'other proceedings' in Section 34 include Letters Patent Appeals. This was doubted by another Division Bench in Nand Kishore Sahoo vs. Chief of Army Staff, leading to a Full Bench reference. The Full Bench by majority held that special appeals are not transferable to the Armed Forces Tribunal. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 131/2020.
Acts & Sections
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: Section 14, Section 15, Section 34
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227, Article 32, Article 136
- Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962:
