Back
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, C. P. MOHAMMED NIAS
Ravindran K. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
1. In all these cases, a preliminary issue as regards maintainability arises for consideration, and hence, they are taken up together for hearing on the said issue.
2. The O.P.(AFT)'s have been filed impugning orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal [AFT] and by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, on the other hand, has been filed impugning an order of the AFT by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The preliminary issue that arises for consideration is whether a person aggrieved by an order passed by the AFT can approach this Court by invoking its jurisdiction either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The following judgments of the Supreme Court were cited before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties: Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Another, (1955) 2 SCR 1, Union of India and Others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Another – (2015) 6 SCC 773, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others – (1997) 3 SCC 261, Balkrishna Ram v. Union of India and Others – (2020) 2 SCC 442,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against orders of the AFT, petitions under Article 227 cannot be filed before the cour....
The power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a basic and inalienable human right, forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and cannot be taken away b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be ....
Point of Law : No person has a right of appeal against the final order or decision of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court other than those falling under Section 30(2) of the Act, but it is statutory ap....
High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to review Tribunal's decisions from Principal Bench in New Delhi, affirming jurisdictional rules established by Supreme Court.
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an efficacious alternate remedy exists before a specialized tribunal, emphasizing the need to respect statutory forums.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary, and should not....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
