Order of Armed Forces Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench challenged in High Court

As per his petition,an administrative member “is not competent and suitable for performing duties as a member of an Appellate Tribunal exercising powers under Section 15 of the AFT Act; much less dictate an order.”

According to the petition,a court martial is entitled to try offences,which are tried by a criminal court,and can award up to death sentence.

Whereas the AFT is entitled to carry out judicial review of court martial proceedings,grant bail and even enhance the sentence awarded by a court martial.

The qualification required to be administrative member under the AFT Act is “he has held or has been holding the rank of Major General or above for a total period of at least three years in the Army or equivalent rank in the Navy or the Air Force”. Whereas the tribunal is required to review,re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence of court martial proceedings under the Evidence Act,1872 applicable by incorporation under section 133 of Army Act,section 130 of Navy Act and section 132 of the Air Force Act.

The qualifications prescribed cannot be deemed reasonably approximate to the standards of main stream judicial functionaries like even a Magistrate or a District Judge,said the petition.

The petition also demands for ruling section 5 (2) (which defines composition of AFT Bench- one judicial and one administrative member) and section 6 (3) (a) (which defines qualification required for an administrative member) of AFT Act ultra vires to Article 14 (equality before law),Article 233 (appointment of district judges) of the Constitution.