Thursday, March 30, 2017
facebook

google plus
FLASH
  • Lok Sabha rejects 5 Rajya Sabha amendments to Finance Bill, 2017
  • Rajya Sabha adjourned briefly as Oppn protests over Rajasthan Minister’s comments on the rape of a minor
Nation

Posted at: Nov 19, 2015, 1:20 AM; last updated: Nov 19, 2015, 12:48 AM (IST)

Larger SC Bench to decide on AFT orders

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 18

The Supreme Court has referred the case pertaining to the jurisdiction of high courts over orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to a larger bench after observing that prima facie the apex court’s decision of March 2015 barring the high courts from hearing appeals against AFT orders may be contrary to the law laid down by of a seven-bench Constitutional Bench.

The larger bench would be constituted by the Chief Justice of India. Taking up a petition that sought that appeals against AFT orders be heard by the high courts, the SC has held that it would be appropriate that the matter be heard by a larger bench of three judges. The case would now be heard on December 3.

The SC judgement of March had ruled that high courts did not have jurisdiction to review AFT orders and any appeal against AFT orders would lay directly with the apex court.

Section 31 of the AFT Act provides that appeals cannot be filed in the SC unless the case involves a “point of law of general public importance”. The SC has also held that issues such as pension, promotions, pay scales, etc. do not fall in the category of “public importance”. The March order had virtually deprived serving and retired petitioners from the armed forces, many of them aged and disabled soldiers, the right to appeal against AFT orders, thereby making the AFT the first and last court to redress their grievances.

COMMENTS

All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On