Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr.
Background
Several Army personnel who were unsuccessful before the Armed Forces Tribunal in service-related disputes approached various High Courts (Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad) under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of using the statutory appeal route to the Supreme Court under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The Delhi High Court entertained such writ petitions and granted relief, while the Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts declined to entertain similar petitions, directing litigants instead to the statutory appeal mechanism. The Union of India, and in some matters the aggrieved personnel, brought these conflicting approaches before the Supreme Court in a batch of connected appeals.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that while the power of judicial review under Article 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be ousted by the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, High Courts should nonetheless exercise self-restraint and ordinarily decline to entertain writ petitions bypassing the specific statutory appeal mechanism (Sections 30 and 31) that Parliament created for Armed Forces Tribunal orders, particularly since Article 136(2) separately bars direct Supreme Court appeals against Tribunal orders, creating an anomaly if High Courts intervene first. Applying this, the Court held the Delhi High Court was wrong to entertain the writ petitions and set aside its judgments, while upholding the Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts' orders declining to do so. The appellants whose Delhi High Court relief was set aside were given liberty to pursue the proper statutory appeal route under Sections 30-31, with permission to seek condonation of delay if needed.
Lesson Learnt
Where Parliament creates a specific tribunal and a dedicated statutory appeal route for a category of disputes (here, Armed Forces service matters), litigants should ordinarily use that route rather than a High Court writ petition, even though the High Court's constitutional writ power can never be completely taken away, courts will discourage bypassing a specialised statutory remedy except in truly exceptional circumstances.