Armed Forces Tribunal

Introduction
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is the specialised statutory forum for the adjudication of disputes and complaints concerning members of the Indian Armed Forces. It is the principal forum for appeals from courts‑martial and for original applications on service and pension matters affecting Army, Navy and Air Force personnel. For practitioners handling military clients — whether defending an accused before a court‑martial, prosecuting service claims, or litigating pension and discharge cases — mastery of AFT practice and the interplay between service law, statutory tribunals and writ jurisdiction is indispensable.

Core Legal Framework
Primary statutes and constitutional touchstones
– Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (AFT Act, 2007): the Act is the foundational statute creating the Tribunal and defining its jurisdiction, powers and procedure. The Act establishes the AFT as the specialist forum to determine “service matters” and to hear appeals from courts‑martial. Key statutory features to note are the provisions establishing the Tribunal, the definitions of its jurisdiction, the bar on civil courts with respect to matters within AFT jurisdiction, and the grant of powers to issue appropriate remedies (including interim orders).
– Army Act, 1950; Navy Act, 1957; Air Force Act, 1950: these service Acts govern discipline and prescribe the system of summary/general courts‑martial, punishments, and disciplinary processes. Appeals from courts‑martial under these Acts are a primary source of AFT jurisdiction.
– Constitution of India: Articles 32 and 226 (writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively) and Article 311 (protection in respect of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank) are often invoked in service litigation and remain relevant where constitutional issues or jurisdictional errors are alleged.

Key provisions practitioners should focus on
– Establishment and jurisdiction of the Tribunal: the AFT Act creates the Tribunal and specifies that it shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of appeals against convictions, sentences and orders by courts‑martial, and original applications in relation to service matters (including pension, retirement, removal and discharge).
– Definitions: the Act defines “service matters” and other pivotal terms — establishing the scope of the Tribunal’s original jurisdiction (e.g., claims relating to promotion, seniority, pension, re‑employment, discharge and reduction in rank).
– Bar on civil courts: the Act contains a non‑obstante provision barring civil courts from entertaining matters falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction; however, the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226/32 continues to be available as interpreted by the Supreme Court (see below).
– Procedural powers: the Tribunal is empowered to regulate its procedure and has powers similar to those of a civil court for discovery and enforcement of its orders, the issuance of interim relief, and awarding consequential relief (restoration, arrears, pension directions etc.).

Practical Application and Nuances
How the AFT functions day‑to‑day
– Two principal kinds of proceedings:
1. Appeals against courts‑martial — these are typically time‑bound appeals after summary/general court‑martial findings and sentences. The appeal is based on the record of the court‑martial and supplemental evidence where permitted.
2. Original applications — for redress of service grievances (promotion, reinstatement, seniority disputes, pension) and claims that a disciplinary action or removal was illegal or violative of statutory/constitutional rights.
– Records and evidence: the record of the court‑martial (charge sheet, order sheets, deposition transcriptions, evidence led at trial, exhibits, charge papers, court‑martial proceedings and the sentence) is the central document in appeals. Practitioners must secure certified copies immediately upon conclusion of proceedings.
– Standard of review: while an appeal against a court‑martial is an appellate proceeding, the AFT is not confined to mere rubber‑stamping of findings of fact. It can re‑appreciate evidence, examine procedural fairness and jurisdictional competence, and interfere where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or where principles of natural justice have been violated. However, it traditionally gives deference to the unique needs and disciplinary requirements of the armed forces; success often requires demonstrating obvious illegality, mala fides, procedural infractions, or material insufficiency of evidence.
– Interim relief: the Tribunal frequently grants interim measures — stay of dismissal/termination, limited reinstatement with protective orders, or provisional pension orders — where the applicant makes out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Preservation of status quo pending final disposal is a common, practical remedy.
– Interaction with internal remedies: some service rules and regulations provide for internal appellate or statutory review channels; practitioners must map exhaustion requirements and whether the AFT will call for completion of those remedies or permit collateral attack. In practice, AFT often admits applicants where internal remedies are illusory, futile or where delay would cause irreparable harm.
Concrete examples
– Challenge to a court‑martial conviction: typical grounds — jurisdictional defect (wrong tribunal constituted), non‑compliance with legally mandated procedure (failure to inform accused, denial of right to cross‑examine key witness), bias or predetermination, acceptance of inadmissible evidence, or sentences manifestly disproportionate to the offence.
– Pension claim/denial of disability pension: show service medical records, discharge summary, medical boards’ findings, continuity of symptoms, nexus between service and disability, and challenge procedural irregularities in medical boards or denial decisions.
– Promotion/seniority dispute: rely on service record entries, ACR/APR (annual confidential records), rules governing rancour/seniority lists, and show arbitrariness or non‑application of prescribed norms.

Procedure and drafting tips
– Timeliness and certified records: obtain certified copies of the court‑martial record and service records at the earliest. Many appeals fail on delay or inability to produce complete records.
– Pleadings: draft a clear cause of action — specify statutory provision/s relied upon, cite exact defects in trial or statutory misapplication, and attach relevant extracts from service statutes, rules, standing orders and the record.
– Evidence together: where fresh evidence is sought, justify admissibility and necessity (why it was not available earlier); support with affidavits and, where needed, secure production through the Tribunal’s powers.
– Preservation of objections: litigants should preserve objections at the earliest stage (during court‑martial and at every stage), because failure to raise a procedural objection can be treated as waiver.

Landmark Judgments
Two decisions of immediate practical relevance
– L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 — tribunal jurisprudence and writ jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 by creating tribunals. For AFT practice this means that, despite the AFT’s statutory jurisdiction, High Courts retain the power to entertain writ petitions where substantial jurisdictional or constitutional errors are alleged. Practical consequence: applicants frequently maintain parallel or fallback writ petitions in High Courts; practitioners should prospectively plead jurisdictional errors to keep Article 226 available as a remedy.
– Tulsiram Patel v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 398 — service jurisprudence and Article 311 principles: Although not an AFT Act decision, Tulsiram Patel is a foundational service law case dealing with disciplinary inquiries, fairness, and the applicability of Article 311 (safeguards against dismissal without inquiry). The decision is often invoked to challenge disciplinary removals, and to insist on statutory and constitutional safeguards before punitive action becomes final. In practice, raise Article 311‑type questions before the Tribunal where dismissal or severe punishment is in issue.

(Practitioners should supplement these with later AFT and Supreme Court decisions that interpret specific aspects of AFT powers, stay jurisdiction, and the extent of appellate review over courts‑martial. Always check the latest decisions from the AFT benches and coordinate strategy accordingly.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
How to leverage AFT effectively
– Early record control: ensure speedy procurement of complete and certified court‑martial records, service entries, and medical records — these are decisive. If the client is under arrest or custody, move applications for certified copies and for instructions on representational rights immediately.
– Front‑load jurisdictional objections: challenge jurisdiction, composition of the forum, or mala fide circumstances at the earliest stage and on the record; courts treat timely objections much more favorably.
– Focus on procedural fairness: courts‑martial are technical bodies; most successful AFT appeals focus on principles of natural justice and procedural lapses (failure to give charge particulars, denial of cross‑examination, non‑recording of confessions).
– Use interim measures strategically: where livelihood or pension is jeopardised, apply early for interim relief with concise but cogent material showing prima facie case and irreparable harm. Secure orders preserving pay/pension and status quo while the petition matures.
– Combine remedies carefully: where a constitutional or jurisdictional ground exists, keep a fallback writ petition ready (L. Chandra Kumar allows the High Court to be approached). But be mindful of forum‑shopping and rules against abuse; advise clients candidly on pros and cons of parallel filings.
– Evidence strategy: assemble contemporaneous documents — ACR/APR, promotion/seniority lists, board minutes, medical boards — because after long gaps reconstruction is difficult.
Common pitfalls to avoid
– Delay in filing: many applications fail because of delay and non‑availability of records. Even where delay is excusable, the Tribunal may deny discretionary relief.
– Letting procedural defects go: failure to record and raise objections at the time of court‑martial is often fatal. Preserve objections on the record in court‑martial to avoid waiver.
– Weak affidavits and hearsay: supplement affidavits with documentary proof and, where possible, direct witness statements; avoid reliance solely on oral recollection.
– Overreliance on AFT to rewrite service policy: AFT remedies are powerful but not a substitute for policy reform. Where the grievance is policy‑based, consider Public Interest Litigation or administrative remedies in parallel.
– Ignoring matrimonial/contractual collateral consequences: a soldier’s dismissal or conviction has knock‑on effects (service benefits, gratuity, insurance); address these claims explicitly in pleadings.

Practical checklist for first 7 days after an adverse court‑martial order
1. Obtain certified copy of the court‑martial order and full record (minute sheets, evidence, exhibits).
2. Secure client’s service book, ACRs/APRs, medical records and orders of posting/transfer.
3. Note statutory appeal period and file expeditiously; if delay is inevitable, prepare a strong explanation and supporting material.
4. Apply for interim relief where livelihood/pension is at stake (stay of dismissal, protective pay/pension).
5. Draft grounds focusing on jurisdictional defects, procedural unfairness, material insufficiency, and mala fides.
6. Consider parallel writ petition as fallback if constitutional or jurisdictional issues exist (but avoid unnecessary forum‑shopping).
7. Preserve chain of custody for physical evidence and prepare witness affidavits promptly.

Conclusion
The Armed Forces Tribunal is the specialist, statutory vehicle for resolution of service and disciplinary disputes in the Indian Armed Forces. For litigators, success before the AFT depends less on rhetorical flourish and more on procedural discipline: securing timely and certified records, preserving objections during courts‑martial, narrowing focused legal grounds rooted in procedural fairness and jurisdictional error, and deploying interim relief tactically. Practitioners must also be alert to the constitutional overlay — High Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 — and should be prepared to use that jurisdiction where the Tribunal’s statutory remedy is inadequate or frustrated. In short: fast record control, crisp pleadings, rigorous documentary proof and an early, clear strategy for interim protection are the practical essentials for representing clients before the AFT.