The Armed Forces Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate statutory challenges, while the High Courts maintain the power of judicial review over those decisions.

% 22.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The prayer clause in this writ petition reads thus:

“In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus certiorari or any another writ/order inter-alia with the direction to the Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him/them prorate pension from the date of discharge; and/or b) Declare the pre-condition as laid down in policy dated 04.11.2022 for joining CPSE/PSU/Autonomous Bodies for grant of service pension as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India but also in violation of Arts.16 and 21 of Constitution of India and thereby set aside the said the conditions;”

c) Grant the benefit of ECHS (Employee Contributory Health Scheme) to the Petitioner at par with other Ex-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT Servicemen;

Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. In view of paras 90 and 93 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI , [(1997) 3 SCC 261], the Armed Forces Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the vires of any statutory or quasi- statutory legislation except the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 itself. We may reproduce the paragraphs thus:

“90. We may first address the issue of exclusion of the power of judicial review of the High Courts. We have already held that in respect of the power of judicial review, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 cannot wholly be excluded. 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

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT

which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter.

*****

93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this r