J U D G E M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J:

1. A reference has been made in the aforementioned case of Amar Singh Ex NB Sub &ors to determine whether the right of Appeal against the Final Orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Act, 2007 (Hereinafter referred to as Act, 2007), excludes the remedy of Judicial Review by the High Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction. It reads as under:

“3. Learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.(C) 8171/2020 has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision dated 11.10.2022 in W.P. (C) 14385/2022 titled as Major Nishant Kaushik vs. Union of India and Ors. whereby this Court has observed as under:

“6. As apparent there from, the scope of an appeal from a final decision or order of the Tribunal before the High Court is extremely limited and is restricted to the power of judicial review, which is to be exercised only when it is examining the decision-making process or when it is to interfere only for correcting the errors of jurisdiction or when it is for correcting errors apparent on the face of record or when the Tribunal acts illegally. Therefore, ordinarily no appeal from a final decision or order of the Tribunal can lie before the High Court.

7. Further in terms of Section 34 of the Act, all pending matters, i.e., every petition, or other proceedings before any High Court or other forum(s) immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, the cause of action whereon it is based, is such that it would have been within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal stood transferred before the Tribunal since its constitution.

9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the present petition is not maintainable in the present form before this Court as the only remedy of challenging the final decision of the Tribunal lies before the Apex Court.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 8171/2020 has drawn the attention of this Court in Order passed by Co-ordinate Bench on15.03.2022 in W.P (C) 6483/2021 titled as Wing Commander ShyamNaithani vs. Union of India and Ors. and other batch petitions whereby observed as under:

44. The jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be bypassed merely by making a provision for direct appeal to the Supreme Court against an order of a Tribunal for the reason that the Apex Court exercises jurisdiction under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 only if a point of law of general public importance is involved. In Ex. Lac Yogesh Pathania (supra), the Supreme Court has clarified that appeals under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act are considered only if a point of general public importance is involved.”

45. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 excludes the administrative supervision of the High Court under Article 227(4) of the Constitution but not judicial superintendence and certainly not jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution.

46. In Rojer Mathew (supra) judgment, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Article 226 of the Constitution does not restrict writ jurisdiction of High Courts over the Armed Forces Tribunal observing the same can neither be tampered with nor diluted. Instead, the Supreme Court has held that High Court's jurisdiction has to be zealously protected and cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment.

47. The Supreme Court in Balkrishna Ram (supra) following the earlier judgment passed by a seven-judges Bench in the case of L.Chandra Kumar (supra) has observed that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunals cannot even be taken away by a legislative or constitutional amendments and the 2015 judgment of Union of India and Ors. versus. Maj. Gen. Shri Kant Sharma and Anr.(supra) by a Bench of two Judges cannot overrule the law already laid down. It has also held that the remedy of a direct appeal from the order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal to the Supreme Court would be extremely diff