Land mark Judgment; Supreme Court : The judgment or order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal is open for challenge before the Concerned High Court. | CriminalLaw

  • Post by Admin
  • Fri Jul 03 2020 12:46:04 GMT+0000 (UTC)
post-thumb

 

The Hon’ble supreme court of india in civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.131/2020 @ special leave petition (civil) no. 6999 of 2017) Balkrishna ram …appellant(s) versus union of india and anr.…respondent(s) categorically Laid down that the Judgment passed by the Armed Forces tribunal is open for challenge before the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The matter came up for consideration was  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.

 

 The Apex Court held that the High Court  will hear the appeals pending before the Division bench and are not liable to transferred to Armed forces tribunal. Additionally it was also laid down that,

 

14. It would be pertinent to add that the principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. The writ courts normally refrain from exercising their extraordinary power if the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy. The existence of such remedy however does not mean that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted. At the same time, it is a well settled principle that such jurisdiction should not be exercised when there is an alternative remedy available5. The rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not a rule of jurisdiction. Merely because the Court may not exercise its discretion, is not a ground to hold that it has no jurisdiction. There may be cases where the High Court would be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction because of some glaring illegality committed by the AFT. One must also remember that the alternative remedy must be efficacious and in case of a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), or a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO); to expect such a person to approach the Supreme Court in every case may not be justified. It is extremely difficult and beyond the monetary reach of an ordinary litigant to approach the Supreme Court. Therefore, it will be for the High Court to decide in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of each case whether it should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction or not. There cannot be a blanket ban on the exercise of such jurisdiction because that would effectively mean that the writ court is denuded of its jurisdiction to entertain such writ petitions which is not the law laid down in L. Chandra Kumar (supra).