Armed Forces Tribunal Act Excludes Administrative Supervision of High Court But Not Judicial Superintendence & Jurisdiction U/A 226

Case: Wing Commander Shyam Naithani V. Union Of India And Ors.

Coram: Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla

Case No.: W.P.(C) 6483/2021 & CM APPL.20367/2021

Court Observation: “This Court would like to emphasise, with all the power that it commands, that judicial restraint should be exercised when the reasons that a tribunal gives for its decision are being examined. Further, the writ jurisdiction of High Court cannot be exercised “in the cloak of an appeal in disguise”,”

“The Constitution confers on the Constitutional Court the power of judicial review which is exclusive in nature. Judicial review goes some way to answer the age old question ‘who guards the guards’? Judicial review among many other important aspects of the Constitution is indispensable and while creating any other mode of adjudication of disputes, the judicial review cannot be compromised with,”

“Consequently, the power of judicial review has consistently been held to be one of the basic features of the Constitution. Basic feature i.e. forming core structure of the Constitution. The said core structure cannot be affected even by way of constitutional amendment.”

“By virtue of Article 33 of the Constitution, the Parliament, while enacting the Army Act (Rule 21), the Air Force Act and the Navy Act, has only prohibited members of the armed forces from taking part in political and non-military activities. These are the only restrictions provided under the said statutes. There is no provision in any of the aforesaid three statutes which prohibits filing of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the judgment in Prithi Pal Singh Bedi (supra) has no application to the present case,”

“List the present batch of matters before the roster bench for consideration in accordance with the parameters laid down hereinabove on 21st March, 2022,”

Previous Posts

Rubbing Male Organ on Vagina or Urethra over Victim’s Underpants Amounts to Rape: Meghalaya High Court

No Disciplinary Action against Judicial Officer for Merely Passing a Wrong Order; Mere Negligence Not Misconduct: Supreme Court

NEET-UG | Students Domiciled in Maharashtra but Passing 10th/ 12th Standard from Outside Not Eligible to Avail State Quota: Bombay High Court

State Can Withhold DCRG Benefits of Convicted Employee despite Pendency of Criminal Appeal: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Full Bench Judgment

District Judge Selection – 35 Years Minimum Age Limit Prescribed By High Courts Not Against Article 233 of Constitution: Supreme Court

Insurance Company Not Liable To Pay Compensation If Heavy Goods Vehicle Is Driven By Person Holding Light Motor Vehicle License: Karnataka High Court

Arbitral Fee under Fourth Schedule Based on Aggregate Value of Claim & Counter-Claim: Delhi High Court

Party Having Right of Appeal Does Not Have Corresponding Right to Insist For Consideration of Appeal by Forum That Was No Longer In Existence: Supreme Court

No Public Right Is Superior To Defence Of The Country: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Challenge To Land Acquisition For ITBP Near LAC

Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Will Attract As Long As Caste Identity Is One Of The Grounds For The Occurrence Of Offence Download Judgement

Keywords

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, Administrative Supervision