Explainer: Deficiency of judges, inadequate powers bog down AFT

Amidst a 32 per cent deficiency in the strength of judges, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is facing a backlog of over 11,000 cases pertaining to service matters involving defence personnel, Parliament was informed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on March 30.

Over the past five years, a total of 44,622 cases were registered with various Benches of the AFT, of which 11,097, accounting for 24 per cent, are pending, the Minister of State for Defence, Sanjay Seth, said in the Rajya Sabha while replying to a question by MP Derek O’ Brien.

Of the 1,385 cases registered in January this year, 406 are pending. Prior to this, 7,921 cases were lodged in 2025, 9,837 in 2024, 9,856 in 2023, 8,014 in 2022 and 7,609 in 2021. The pendency for the respective years was 3,431, 2,087, 534, 1,844 and 2,795.

Vacant posts

The MoD revealed that of the 34 sanctioned posts of judicial and administrative members in 11 AFT Benches across the country, 11 posts are lying vacant. The Regional Benches at Guwahati, Jabalpur and Srinagar, which are authorised one judicial and one administrative member each, are totally vacant.

The Principal Bench located at New Delhi, which has a sanctioned strength of six members including the chairperson, and the Regional Benches at Mumbai and Jaipur with two members each, are the only Benches functioning with their full complement.

Each court in a Bench comprises one Judicial Member, who should have been a High Court judge, and an Administrative Member who should have held the rank of Major General and equivalent in the defence services for at least three years. The eligibility criteria was amended three years ago to include a person having special knowledge of, and professional experience of not less than 20 years, in economics, business, commerce, law, finance, accountancy, management, industry, public affairs, administration or in other matters which are useful to the AFT.

The chairperson should have been a Supreme Court judge or the Chief Justice of a High Court. A Bench can have more than one court like, for example the Principal Bench and the Chandigarh Bench, which have three courts each.

Purpose behind setting up the tribunal

The AFT was established through the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, following recommendations of the 169th Law Commission Report to provide a swift and effective redressal mechanism for defence personnel, and was inaugurated in 2009. It can broadly be equated with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that adjudicates service matters for civilian Central government staff.

The AFT has the power for the adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolments and conditions of service subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950. It can further provide for appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of courts martial and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

It also has the power to grant bail to persons in military custody and can remit, mitigate or enhance sentences handed down by military courts. However, it does not have jurisdiction over other uniformed forces under the Central government like the BSF, ITBP or the CRPF.

The establishment of the AFT was hailed as a long-standing demand of the defence community for a dedicated judicial forum. Earlier, such cases were filed before the High Courts, which was a long-drawn process.

Over the years, experts have voiced concern over the case pendency, shortage of members, and the lack of powers to get its rulings and orders implemented.

The selection and appointment of members is done by the MoD, which sources said, is a slow and bureaucratic process. At times, there are not adequate applicants for the posts of judicial members and there have been instances of those selected opting not to join. This has also led to Benches remaining non-functional for extended periods and members from other Benches being deputed temporarily to hold court for a few days at a time.

“While the pendency figures are certainly concerning, the disclosure of this data is a welcome and transparent step. There is an urgent need for timely institutional strengthening to ensure that soldiers and veterans receive the speedy justice they deserve,” senior advocate Vikas Chatrath said. “This requires empowering the AFT, ensuring adequate Benches, and regular staffing support,” he added.

Some legal experts have termed the AFT a “toothless tiger” because it lacks full powers of civil contempt: the authority to get its judgments and final orders enforced in case of non-compliance. This results in a situation where even after winning a case in the AFT, the litigants may have to wait for months and years for the implementation of benefits. In many such cases, they are forced to approach the High Court for execution of AFT orders. There are thousands of cases pending for execution.

Last year, a Full Bench of the AFT ruled that the AFT Act granted it powers of civil contempt, but the Centre challenged the order. In February, the Delhi High Court held that the AFT can pass orders for contempt of interim orders only, but the jurisdiction on contempt of final orders lies with the High Court.