Article 226 and Armed Forces Tribunal orders: writ jurisdiction survives, but statutory appeal should ordinarily be respected.

Article 226 jurisdiction of High Courts remains constitutionally available against Armed Forces Tribunal orders, because the statutory appeal scheme under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 does not oust judicial review. However, where the Act provides an efficacious appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised sparingly and in line with the special statutory framework, so as to avoid parallel proceedings. The statutory exclusions of Article 136(2) and Article 227(4) in relation to Armed Forces courts and tribunals do not displace Article 226. The Delhi High Court's entertainment of the writ petition was set aside, while the refusals of writ relief in the connected matters were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Courts could entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal despite the statutory appellate scheme under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Analysis: The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 creates a special adjudicatory framework for service matters and court-martial matters, with a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 30 subject to leave under Section 31. The constitutional scheme expressly excludes the Supreme Court's special leave jurisdiction under Article 136(2) and the High Courts' supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227(4) in relation to Armed Forces courts and tribunals, while Article 226 remains part of the constitutional structure. The power of judicial review under Article 226 is a basic feature and cannot be overridden by ordinary legislation, but settled precedent requires High Courts to respect statutory mechanisms and ordinarily not bypass an efficacious alternative remedy. Where the statute provides a complete appellate route, writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and consistently with the legislative scheme, especially to avoid anomalous parallel proceedings.

Conclusion: The availability of a statutory appeal under Sections 30 and 31 does not take away the High Courts' jurisdiction under Article 226, but writ petitions against Armed Forces Tribunal orders should normally not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available. The Delhi High Court's decision to entertain the writ petition was set aside, while the orders declining writ relief in the other matters were upheld.

---