Delhi HC Examines Armed Forces Tribunal's Power to Test Statute Constitutionality A Full Bench has sought the Defence Ministry's definitive stance on whether the AFT can adjudicate on the constitutional validity of statutes, a question arising from a transwoman's dismissal from the Navy that holds significant implications for the armed forces and the scope of tribunal jurisdiction.

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has initiated a significant constitutional examination into the powers of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), posing a fundamental question: Can a statutory tribunal exercise the power of judicial review to determine the constitutional validity of parliamentary statutes? This pivotal issue has been placed before a Full Bench, which is seeking the highest level of input from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) due to its far-reaching consequences for all personnel across the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force.

The matter, which could redefine the jurisdictional boundaries of the AFT, emerged from a writ petition filed by a transwoman challenging her dismissal from the Indian Navy. The Central Government has contested the High Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the AFT is the competent authority to hear the case and is empowered to decide on the constitutionality of the statutory provisions under which the petitioner was discharged.

Recognizing the gravity and complexity of the legal question, a Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla is now tasked with adjudicating the scope of the AFT's authority.

The Core Jurisdictional Dilemma

The central legal issue revolves around the extent of powers vested in the AFT under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. While the Supreme Court, in cases like L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India , has affirmed that tribunals can examine the constitutionality of subordinate legislation (rules and regulations), the power to strike down provisions of a principal statute enacted by Parliament has traditionally been considered the exclusive domain of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.

The Centre's stance in the present case posits that the AFT is not merely a court of first instance but a specialized body capable of comprehensive adjudication, including constitutional challenges to the very statutes governing service members. This position, if accepted, would significantly enhance the AFT's powers, positioning it as the primary forum for all service-related disputes, including those involving fundamental rights.

Conversely, a ruling that restrains the AFT from exercising such powers would reaffirm the High Courts' role as the principal guardians of constitutional validity, requiring service personnel to bifurcate their claims—approaching the AFT for service matters and a High Court for constitutional challenges.

High Court Underscores National Importance

The Full Bench has left no doubt about the national significance of the issue. In its order, the Court emphasized that the outcome would not be limited to the naval personnel involved but would set a precedent for all three branches of the armed forces.

"We clarify that since this matter may have an impact over the Personnel of all the Armed Forces, including those of the Army and Air Force as well, apart from the Navy, we provide that the instructions in the matter shall be provided to learned counsel for the respondents by none other than the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India or any other High-Ranked Officer nominated by him for the said purpose," the Bench stated.

This directive is a clear signal of the Court's intent to receive a consolidated and authoritative stand from the government, ensuring that the policy and legal implications are fully considered at the highest echelons of the Defence Ministry.

Appointment of Amicus Curiae and Procedural Roadmap

To ensure a thorough and well-rounded examination of the intricate legal questions, the Court has appointed Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan as amicus curiae (friend of the court). Mr. Narayan’s role will be to provide impartial assistance to the Bench, analyzing the constitutional framework, relevant precedents, and the broader implications of extending judicial review powers to the AFT.

The Court has established a clear timeline for the proceedings, directing all parties, including the amicus curiae, to file comprehensive written submissions and a common, paginated compilation of relevant judgments. This structured approach aims to streamline the arguments before the next hearing, which is scheduled for November 28.

Broader Implications for the Justice System

The Delhi High Court's decision will have a profound impact beyond military law. It will contribute to the ongoing national debate on the "tribunalization" of justice. Tribunals were established to provide speedy and specialized justice, reducing the burden on constitutional courts. However, questions persist about whether these statutory bodies can fully substitute for High Courts, especially in matters of constitutional interpretation and the protection of fundamental rights.

For legal practitioners, the ruling will provide crucial clarity on the appropriate forum for challenging service conditions and statutory provisions within the armed forces. A definitive judgment will prevent jurisdictional ambiguity and streamline litigation for thousands of service members.

As the legal community awaits the Defence Ministry's formal response and the subsequent hearings, this case stands as a critical test of the architecture of India's judicial system, balancing the need for specialized adjudication with the sacrosanct role of constitutional courts in upholding the rule of law.