Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29152
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ
SYRIAK P.J. – Appellant
Versus
RECORD OFFICER FOR OIC RECORDS – Respondent
OP(AFT)/1/2021
JOHNSON MANAYANI BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to matters decided by the Armed Forces Tribunal due to constitutional and statutory limitations.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Armed Forces Tribunal - Article 227, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, Section 30 - The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 227 against the Armed Forces Tribunal, as codified in the Constitution and reaffirmed the necessity of procedural adherence under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a discharged soldier suffering from Anxiety Neurosis, filed an Original Petition seeking urgent hearings on his applications pending in the Armed Forces Tribunal, citing delays due to non-availability of Tribunal members and the health concerns of himself and his wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed that it does not possess supervisory powers over the Armed Forces Tribunal under Article 227, noting the explicit statutory restrictions and emphasizing the need for filing case papers in accordance with the Tribunal's Standard Operating Procedure for urgent hearings.
Issues: Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to supervise the Armed Forces Tribunal's proceedings under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi: The explicit bar on the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over the Armed Forces Tribunal as outlined in Article 227(4) and Section 30(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act necessitated dismissal of the Original Petition.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The case set up in the above Original Petition filed under Articles
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is broadly as follows :
That the petitioner is a discharged soldier. He was having
7 years Military Service. At the time of enrolment, he was physically and mentally hale and hearty. The petitioner was doing his duties at the field stations, especially at the Samba Sector – a sensitive area. The reason for discharge was 'Anxiety Neurosis Disease'. Admittedly, at the time of enrolment, the petitioner was hale and hearty. There is no dispute on that. At the time of discharge, the petitioner was infected with 'Anxiety Nervousness'. It is a clear case of illness attributed to sight of service. The above dictum was simply ignored by the authorities. That the petitioner has filed Ext.P-1 original application, O.A No.146/2018 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Ernakulam Regional Bench in Form No.9 under Rule 9(ii) of the Rules concerned as early as on 31.01.2018. That Ext.P-1 original application was accompanied by Ext.P-2 application to condone the delay in filing the O.A, along with accompanying affidavit. That the matters in Exts.P-1 & P-2 have not been taken up by the Ernakulam Regional Bench at Armed Forces Tribunal till date and the petitioner could learnt that as of now, no members of the Tribunal are appointed and posted at the Ernakulam Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal and that hence, the matters in Exts.P-1 & P-2 are lying totally unattended, even though the petitioner has a very serious grievance in the matter. The petitioner would thus contend that the total non-consideration of the petitioner's original application at Ext.P-1 and the delay condonation application at Ext.P-2 is causing grave and serious difficulties and hardships to him and his wife especially due to his wife's cancer treatment, which is evident from Ext.P-3 medical certificate issued by the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital. It is in the light of the above averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant original petition with the following prayers:
“I. Issue appropriate direction or order to hear and dispose of the petitioner's Ext P1 and P2, within a time bound manner after hearing the petitioner.
II. Declare that, emergent hearing of the petitioner's Exts P1 and P2 is highly necessary due to the health conditions of the petitioner and his wife.
IV. (sic) Issue such other order or direction as deem fit and necessary by this Hon'ble court.”
2. Heard Sri.Benhur Joseph Manayani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Daya Sindhu Sreehari, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for all the respondents in this O.P.
3. Sri.Benhur Joseph Manayani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the submissions and contentions raised in the original petition. Per contra, Sri.Daya Sindhu Sreehari, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is by now well established that the supervisory power of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not available to be invoked as against the Armed Forces Tribunal in view of the specific bar contained to that effect in clause (4) of of the , which expressly stipulates that nothing in that article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. In that regard, it is also pointed out that it is also explicitly stipulated as per Sec.30(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act promulgated by the Parliament that subject to the provisions of Sec.31 thereof, an appeal will lie to the Supreme Court against the final decision or order of the Tribunal, other than an order passed under Sec.19, etc. of the provide as follows :
“227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout
