Article 226 review over Armed Forces Tribunal orders survives; High Court intervention is not per se barred.

Article 226 judicial review remains available against Armed Forces Tribunal orders, because the constitutional power is part of the basic structure and cannot be curtailed by implication or by a restrictive reading of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Article 227(4) limits superintendence only and does not extinguish writ jurisdiction, while the appellate scheme under Sections 30 and 31, read with Article 136(2), does not create a complete ouster of High Court review. The High Court may intervene for denial of fundamental rights, jurisdictional error, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record, subject to judicial self-restraint.

---

---

Issues: Whether orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal are amenable to challenge before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whether there is any per se bar on such judicial review.

Analysis: The constitutional power of judicial review under Article 226 forms part of the basic structure and cannot be curtailed by implication or by a restrictive reading of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The limitation in Article 227(4) is confined to superintendence and does not extinguish writ jurisdiction. The restrictive appellate scheme under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, together with Article 136(2), does not create a complete ouster of the High Court's jurisdiction. The Court rejected the view that certain categories of Armed Forces Tribunal matters are wholly insulated from writ review, and held that the High Court may intervene where there is denial of fundamental rights, jurisdictional error, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record, while remaining mindful of judicial self-restraint.

Conclusion: There is no per se restriction on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 by the High Court against orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the contrary view was held to be incorrect.

---