Balkrishna Ram v. Union of India
Background
The appellant, an armed forces member who had been discharged from service after failing an aptitude test, had a pending case before a High Court at the time the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was established under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. A key legal question arose: did an intra-court appeal pending before a Division Bench of a High Court (against a single judge's order in an armed-forces service matter) have to be transferred to the newly-created AFT, or could the High Court continue to hear it itself? The appellant also separately argued that his discharge order was invalid because it didn't show he had been considered for an alternative post.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 14(1) of the AFT Act expressly excludes the High Courts' and Supreme Court's constitutional writ/appellate jurisdiction from the AFT's powers, and relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India that judicial review by High Courts is part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be ousted by a tribunal statute. It rejected the argument (based on a different precedent, Major General Shri Kant Sharma) that the AFT fully substitutes for the High Court, holding that an intra-court appeal already pending before a High Court Division Bench does not get transferred to the AFT. On the merits of the appellant's own discharge, the Court found the record showed he had in fact been considered for alternative posts but failed to meet the height criteria, and that the discharge order need not spell this out explicitly. The appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Tribunals created by ordinary legislation, including the Armed Forces Tribunal, cannot take over a High Court's own constitutional appellate or writ jurisdiction: that power is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and survives regardless of what a tribunal's enabling Act says.