The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution.

As per S.A. Bobde; CJ.:-

A question is raised by the respondents whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the AFT Act").

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for relief against the order dated 27-7-2000 imposing a punishment of discharge from service on him. In addition, he has questioned the constitutionality of Sections 82, 83, 84 and 86 of the Air Force Act, 1950 being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Rules 24 and 31 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Section 50 (b) of the Air Force Act, 1950 being ultra vires Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 being ultra vires Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.

According to the respondents the petitioner has equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 14 of the AFT Act, which enables a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal for redressal. Since the question raised on behalf of the respondents is of general importance we requested Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court as amicus curiae.

4. According to the amicus curiae and the respondents, Section 14 of the AFT Act provides an alternative remedy to the petitioner even when he challenges the constitutional validity of provisions of a statute such as Air Force Act, 1950. The main submission of Shri Tiwari is based on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein the question raised was whether Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations is questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handling matters where constitutional issues are not involved. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the matters relating to constitutional validity of statute cannot be raised before the Tribunals. The Supreme Court observed as follows :-

"90.......It has been contended before us that the Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations is questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handling matters where constitutional issues are not raised. We cannot bring ourselves to agree to this proposition as that may result in splitting up proceedings and may cause avoidable delay. If such a view were to be adopted, it would be open for litigants to raise constitutional issues, many of which may be quite frivolous, to directly approach the High Courts and thus subvert the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. Moreover, even in these special branches of law, some areas do involve the consideration of constitutional questions on a regular basis; for instance, in service law matters, a large majority of cases involve an interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. To hold that the Tribunals have no power to handle matters involving constitutional issues would not serve the purpose for which they were constituted. On the other hand, to hold that all such decisions will be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls will serve two purposes. While saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will also have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter.

91. It has also been contended before us that even in dealing with cases which are properly before the Tribunals, the manner in which justice is dispensed by them leav