‘Shocking, 5,612 AFT orders ignored’: Delhi High Court rebukes Centre over soldiers’ unresolved legal battles

Sharp reminder to executive

• There is no lack of compassion in the executive for the members of our Armed Forces, and any delay or reluctance in implementing the decisions of the AFT would ordinarily be bona fide.
• We only request the authorities to, if they are aggrieved by any such decision or order, challenge it in a manner known to law, rather than just leave it unimplemented.

• The right to challenge a judicial decision is always available to the citizen as well as the executive.
• Failure to implement the decision, without challenging it, or, if it is challenged, obtaining any interlocutory or final order impeding its implementation, is completely unacceptable.

5,612 unimplemented orders

• It is, to say the least, startling – rather, shocking – that, on the date when the impugned order was passed by the AFT, 5612 orders passed by it remained to be complied with.
• This betokens a sorry state of affairs, and we understand and appreciate the concerns that prompted the AFT to hold as it did.
• Enforceability of orders passed by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is of the essence.
• Adjudicatory functions are not exercised by such authorities, normally peopled by persons well-trained in the law, often with years of judicial experience behind them, for a lark.

• They are adversarial in nature, with rival rights being tested, tried and balanced by deft application of settled legal principles.
• Decisions taken by judicial, or even quasi-judicial authorities, are not intended to be consigned to oblivion.

Tribunal frustrated by non-implementation

• The matter traces back to a detailed full bench ruling of the AFT dated July 31, 2024.
• The tribunal had been confronted with 5,612 of its orders remaining unimplemented.
• Faced with repeated instances of non-implementation, the AFT examined whether willful disobedience of its final orders could amount to “contempt” under Section 19 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
• It answered in the affirmative, holding that persistent non-compliance undermined its authority and could attract contempt action.
• The Centre challenged this interpretation before the Delhi High Court.

Delhi High court’s question

• The case required the bench to interpret Sections 19 and 29 of the AFT Act along with Rule 25 of the AFT (Procedure) Rules, 2008.
• In simple terms, the high court examined if the AFT can punish officers or authorities for failing to implement its final orders?

Section 19: Narrow contempt window

• Section 19 of the Act provides that a person commits contempt if he uses insulting or threatening language before the tribunal or causes interruption or disturbance in its proceedings.
• The provision does not use the words “civil contempt” or “criminal contempt”.
• The bench held that once the tribunal delivers a final order disposing of a case, its proceedings conclude.

• Therefore, non-implementation of that final order cannot be said to “interrupt or disturb” ongoing proceedings.
• Mere disobedience of a final order does not fall within Section 19.
• However, the court clarified that where disobedience of an interim direction disrupts ongoing proceedings, Section 19 may still be invoked.
• The AFT, therefore, cannot expand its contempt jurisdiction beyond what the statute expressly permits.

Rule 25: Broad inherent powers, no jail

• The high court also examined Rule 25 of the AFT (Procedure) Rules, which preserves the tribunal’s inherent powers to give effect to its orders and secure the ends of justice.
• The court interpreted this provision broadly.
• Rule 25 does not confer civil contempt powers or authorise imprisonment.
• It does allow the AFT to issue binding directions to ensure compliance, impose service-related consequences and initiate measures affecting assets where appropriate.

• However, incarceration, being a deprivation of liberty, requires express statutory authority under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Since no such authority exists in the AFT Act, the tribunal cannot imprison officials for non-compliance.

Rejection of ‘operational difficulties’ argument

• The Delhi High Court also addressed submissions made before a ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee‘ suggesting that granting civil contempt powers to the AFT would cause “operational difficulties” for the Armed Forces.
• The bench said that there can be no operational difficulties in complying with judicial orders, and if an order is unpalatable, the remedy is to challenge it, not to disregard it.
• Accepting such reasoning, it said the same would erode the rule of law.