Army Act, 1959 – Order of attachment of respondent for initiating disciplinary action under Army Instructions 30/86 – Communications were intimated to the respondent to report to the unit of attachment – Writ petition before Manipur High Court by respondent challenging the legality of these orders – Jurisdiction of the Manipur High Court challenged on the ground that the respondent at the time of the initiation of the action of attachment was based at Nanded in Maharashtra and the orders were issued by the Headquarters at New Delhi – High Court proceeded to entertain the Writ Petition on the submission urged before it that the order of attachment had been issued for the purpose of holding an enquiry in respect of incidents which had taken place at Imphal when the respondent was posted there – The hearing was adjourned to consider the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and until then the orders impugned were stayed – On 24.01.2019, High Court confirmed the earlier ad-interim order – On appeal, held: High Court was manifestly in error in entering upon an area which related to the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Army under the Army Act, 1950 – The admitted position was that the respondent was posted at Nanded in Maharashtra – Manipur High Court had no reasonable basis to exercise jurisdiction – The challenge in the writ petition which was instituted by the respondent before the High Court related exclusively to the order of attachment which was followed by two communications requiring him to proceed to the place of attachment – An officer subject to the discipline of the Army Act, 1950 must abide by the regulations, if the disciplinary jurisdiction is sought to be invoked – It was manifestly inappropriate for the High Court to take upon itself the task of pre-empting the exercise of that jurisdiction and taking over the essential function of determining whether or not recourse to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted – Service law – Armed Forces – Jurisdiction – Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 – s.3(o).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was manifestly in error in entering upon an area which relates to the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Army under the Army Act 1950. The admitted position is that the respondent was posted at Nanded in Maharashtra. The Single Judge had no reasonable basis to exercise jurisdiction. [Para 13] [587-H; 588-A]
2.1 The challenge in the Writ Petition which was instituted by the respondent before the High Court related exclusively to the order of attachment dated 5 October 2018, which was followed by two communications dated 2 November 2018 requiring him to proceed to the place of attachment. An officer subject to the discipline of the Army Act 1950 must abide by the regulations, if the disciplinary jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. It was manifestly inappropriate for the High Court to take upon itself the task of pre-empting the exercise of that jurisdiction and taking over the essential function of determining whether or not recourse to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted. [Para 13] [588-B-C]
2.2 The assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was misconceived. Also, having regard to the definition of the expression “service matters” in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 14, such a Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court. The course of action followed by the Single Judge has serious repercussions for the maintenance of discipline in the Army. Discipline is the essence of the organisation and structure of an Armed Force. [Para 15] [588-E-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.