Armed Force Tribunal deals with service matters in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act. 1950, the Navy Act 1957 and the Air Force Act 1950.

The service matters include:

1. Remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
2. tenure, including commission, appointment, enrolment, probation, confirmation, seniority, training, promotion, reversion, premature retirement, superannuation, termination of service and penal deductions;
3. summary disposal and trials where the punishment of dismissal is awarded;
4. any other matter, whatsoever, but shall not include matters relating to:
   
   1. orders issued under section 18 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and section 18 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950); and
   2. transfers and postings including the change of place or unit on posting whether individually or as a part of unit, formation or ship in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950).
   3. leave of any kind;
   4. Summary Court Martial except where the punishment is of dismissal or imprisonment for more than three months;

Vide Section 30-31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, appellate mechanism is defined. The sections read as under:

30. Appeal to the Supreme Court:

1. Subject to the provisions of section 31, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court against the final decision or order of the Tribunal (other than an order passed under section 19):
   
   Provided that such appeal is preferred within a period of ninety days of the said decision or order:
   
   Provided further that there shall be no appeal against an interlocutory order of the Tribunal.
    
2. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court as of right from any order or decision of the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt: Provided that an appeal under this sub-section shall be filed in the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of the order appealed against.
    
3. Pending any appeal under sub-section (2), the Supreme Court may order that:
   
   1. the execution of the punishment or the order appealed against be suspended; or
   2. if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail:

Provided that where an appellant satisfies the Tribunal that he intends to prefer an appeal, the Tribunal may also exercise any of the powers conferred under clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be.

31. Leave to appeal

1. An appeal to the Supreme Court shall lie with the leave of the Tribunal; and such leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Tribunal that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision, or it appears to the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered by that Court.
    
2. An application to the Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court shall be made within a period of thirty days beginning with the date of the decision of the Tribunal and an application to the Supreme Court for leave shall be made within a period of thirty days beginning with the date on which the application for leave is refused by the Tribunal.
    
3. An appeal shall be treated as pending until any application for leave to appeal is disposed of and if leave to appeal is granted, until the appeal is disposed of; and an application for leave to appeal shall be treated as disposed of at the expiration of the time within which it might have been made, but it is not made within that time.

Clearly the appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the decisions of Armed Forces Tribunal and that too only if the Tribunal certifies that a point of law of 'general public importance' is involved.

The Supreme Court held in Union of India vs Parmeshwar Dass on 21 Mar 2023, that generally maximum cases pertain to pension matters and it would be tough to iterate that a larger public interest would be involved in an individual's pension matter. And to deny review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be against the basic structure doctrine.

Thus, overruling its own judgement of 2015, the Supreme Court allowed the petitions to High Courts under Article 226 against the decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Thus aggrieved service personnel have now liberty and an option to seek remedy at High Courts before going to Supreme Court.

The advantages are numerous such as proximity of High Court to the aggrieved service personnel, professional fees of High Court counsel, one more ladder before the decision becomes final etc.

Written By: Ritesh Dhir