9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1316 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding matters related to Armed Forces. - Held that - The High Court (Delhi High Court) while entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution bypassed the machinery created under Sections 30 and 31 of Act. However, we find that Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court had not entertained the petitions under Article 226 and directed the writ petitioners to seek resort under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. Further, the law laid down by this Court, as referred to above, being binding on the High Court, we are of the view that Delhi High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters related to Armed Forces Tribunal orders. 2. Availability and adequacy of alternative remedies under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 3. Legislative intent and constitutional provisions regarding judicial review and appeal processes. 4. Potential anomalous situations arising from bypassing statutory appeal mechanisms. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226: The central issue is whether the High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, despite the existence of a statutory appeal mechanism under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The judgment emphasizes that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be overridden by any legislation, including the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. This principle was reaffirmed in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, where it was held that the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be ousted by an Act of Parliament. Availability and Adequacy of Alternative Remedies: The judgment discusses the statutory provisions under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, particularly Sections 30 and 31, which provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court with the leave of the Tribunal. It is highlighted that when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensation. This aligns with the principle of self-imposed restraint, where the High Court should not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available. The Court cited several precedents, including Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India, to support this principle. Legislative Intent and Constitutional Provisions: The judgment delves into the legislative intent behind the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and the constitutional provisions related to judicial review. It references the Parliamentary 10th Standing Committee for Defence's deliberations, which acknowledged that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is an inviolable part of the Constitution's basic structure. The judgment also examines Articles 32, 33, 136, and 227 of the Constitution, which collectively underscore the importance of judicial review and the limitations on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts concerning Armed Forces matters. Potential Anomalous Situations: The judgment highlights the potential for anomalous situations if the High Court entertains writ petitions under Article 226, bypassing the statutory appeal mechanisms. It points out that if a person aggrieved by an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal moves the High Court and the High Court entertains the petition, the aggrieved person cannot challenge both the Tribunal's and the High Court's orders in a single joint appeal. This could lead to procedural complications and undermine the statutory appeal process established under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Delhi High Court, which had entertained writ petitions under Article 226, and upheld the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts, which had directed petitioners to seek remedies under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The judgment reinforces the principle that while the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution, it should exercise its jurisdiction with due regard to the legislative intent and statutory mechanisms provided for redressal of grievances. The Civil Appeals were allowed or dismissed accordingly, providing liberty to the aggrieved persons to avail the statutory remedies.
|
