C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

This W.P.(C) filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Army Forces Tribunal, Cochin Bench, was initially not numbered by the Registry for the reason that the very same Bench of the Tribunal in the decision in Indeevarakshan Nair

M.P. v. A.S.C. Records (MT) reported in 2010 (3) KHC 517 held that Writ Petition under Art.226 or Art.227 of the Constitution is not maintainable in the High Court against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal. However, considering the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India reported in (1997

(2) KLT SN 11 (C.No.11) SC = (1997) 3 SCC 261) and S.14(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (Hereinafter called “the Act”) which specifically retains the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, we felt that the view taken by the Tribunal is prima facie incorrect and therefore, we directed numbering the W.P. (C). Since Writ Petitions are likely to be filed in this Court under Art.226 or 227 against the orders of the Tribunal, we have to necessarily consider the correctness of the above decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal on maintainability of such petitions in this Court and for this purpose we heard counsel for the petitioner and Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.

2. Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar’s case referred above wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are not affected by provisions to the contrary that may be contained in statutes by which Tribunals are constituted under Art.323A or 323B of the Constitution. Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that the Armed Forces Tribunal was constituted by Act 18 of 2007, which was enacted by the Parliament after Chandrakumar’s case and probably taking into account the said decision of the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution is specifically retained under S.14 of the Act. Even though the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the above referred case unequivocally declared that the powers and jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution are part of the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be taken away by statutory provisions, we feel some detailed consideration is required about the nature of jurisdiction of the High Court against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, S.14(1) of the Act states as follows:

“Section 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters. – (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, 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 Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters.”

What is clear from the above provision is that from the appointed day the Tribunal is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction on service matters covered by the Act except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts under Arts.226 and 227 which are specifically retained and unaffected by the Act. S.2 of the Act makes it clear that the Act applies to all persons covered by the three separate statutes mentioned therein relating to Army, Navy and Air Force. Under sub-s.(2) of S.2, the Act is made applicable to even retired defence personnel and their dependents and legal heirs after death or disability, in relation to service matters, in general, the Tribunal is vested with the authority to handle all service matters of serving, retired and deceased service personnel. There is specific exclusion of the jurisdi