Contempt notice to defence secretary over control of Armed Forces Tribunal

Since 2009, when it was set up, 2007, the tribunal has functioned under the ministry of defence

Ajai Shukla New Delhi
Last Updated : Aug 28 2013 | 4:46 PM IST
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Thursday issued contempt notices to the defence secretary and the secretary (justice) in the law ministry for not implementing court directions to place the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under the ministry of law and justice (MoLJ). The officials must respond by September 6.

The AFT is an independent judicial tribunal that soldiers must petition for justice before approaching the civil courts.

However, since 2009, when it was set up through the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the AFT has functioned under the ministry of defence (MoD).

Also Read

That led Chandigarh-based lawyer, Major Navdeep Singh, to file a public interest suit before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, highlighting a conflict of interest — since the MoD was the respondent in every case before the AFT, how could it oversee the tribunal? In November 2012, the high court directed the AFT be overseen by the MoLJ, not the MoD.

The MoD responded with a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on the high court’s decision. The apex court neither stayed the decision, nor issued a notice. The government also set up an “inter-ministerial group” to look into the transfer of control of tribunals to the MoLJ.

The contempt petition pointed out that implementation of court judgments was not dependent upon the opinion of an “inter-ministerial group”.

The contempt petition also alleged that the MoD was interfering with judicial functioning and violating law by “approving” appointments of AFT members, though the procedure does not require MoD approval.

This newspaper has reported (April 2, 2013, ‘RTI reveals MoD largesse to Armed Forces Tribunal’) how the MoD handed out largesse to AFT members  —  paying Rs 67 lakh for five “official foreign visits” by the AFT chairperson and members; and granting canteen shopping facilities to retired judges who are “judicial members” on AFT benches. Being civilians, the judges are not entitled to these.

Interestingly, the MoLJ has supported the idea of bringing the AFT, as well as tribunals in other ministries, under its jurisdiction.

In an affidavit filed before the high court, the MoLJ stated that it had tried since 1997 to set up a Central Tribunal Division, but was opposed by most ministries and departments.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 23 2013 | 12:28 AM IST

Next Story