In a significant ruling on the scope of enforcement of orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the Delhi High Court has partly set aside the findings of a Full Bench of the AFT, holding that the Tribunal does not possess independent powers to punish for contempt arising from non-compliance of its final orders, though it retains wide inherent powers to secure implementation of its decisions.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was hearing a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging a detailed judgment of a Full Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal which had held that wilful non-implementation of AFT orders could amount to contempt under Section 19 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
The High Court undertook an extensive analysis of Sections 19 and 29 of the AFT Act, read with Rule 25 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008. It held that the AFT’s contempt jurisdiction is strictly confined to Section 19 of the Act and cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation or subordinate legislation. Section 19, the Court noted, contemplates contempt only in cases involving insulting or threatening language or acts that cause interruption or disturbance in the proceedings of the Tribunal. Mere non-compliance with a final order, even if wilful, does not fall within this statutory framework, as proceedings before the AFT conclude upon disposal of the original application.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that contumacious disobedience of interlocutory directions or interim orders of the AFT, which hampers or disrupts the continuation of proceedings, may in an appropriate case attract Section 19.
Importantly, the Court noted that the absence of civil contempt powers in the AFT does not render its final orders toothless. The Court held that non-compliance with final AFT orders would attract the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, treating the AFT as a judicial body whose orders cannot be allowed to go unenforced. Adopting a purposive interpretation, the Court observed that Section 10 must be construed broadly to remedy the mischief of non-implementation of judicial orders, especially in light of the alarming disclosure that over 5,600 AFT orders remained unimplemented at the time of the Tribunal’s reference.
On Rule 25 of the 2008 Rules, the Court held that while it does not confer contempt powers, it recognises the inherent authority of the AFT to issue directions necessary to give effect to its orders or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers, the Bench said, are wide and may extend to measures such as service-related consequences or action against assets, but cannot include incarceration or punishment akin to civil contempt, which would offend Article 21 of the Constitution in the absence of statutory sanction.
The Court also rejected the AFT’s view that it is a court of record, reiterating settled law that tribunals do not enjoy such status unless expressly conferred by statute. It disagreed with the contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in earlier precedent, holding that reading non-implementation of final orders as “disturbance of proceedings” would amount to rewriting Section 19.
While expressing concern over the systemic non-compliance with AFT orders, the Bench concluded that enforcement must operate within constitutional and statutory limits. The writ petition was accordingly allowed in part, with the law clarified on the respective roles of the AFT and the High Court in ensuring compliance with Tribunal orders.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, with Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Ms. Ashima Chopra, Advs. with Major Anish Muralidhar and Brig Ajeen Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Manglik, Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Mr. Ajit Kakkar and Ms. Sonal Singh, Advs. with Col Mukul Dev
