Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Quashes Armed Forces Tribunal’s Order on Policy Formation, Affirms Limits of Judicial Authority

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India overturned a decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had previously directed the formulation of a new policy for filling the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the Air Force. The apex court, in its landmark judgment, reinforced the boundaries of judicial authority, especially in matters pertaining to policy formation and public service.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, addressed the appeal filed by the Union of India & Others against Air Commodore NK Sharma. The Tribunal’s earlier directive had allowed Sharma to continue serving beyond his superannuation age, pending the formulation and implementation of the new policy. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court.

In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court stated, “Making policy, as is well recognized, is not in the domain of the Judiciary.” This observation firmly establishes the principle that judicial bodies, including Tribunals, cannot overstep their legislative boundaries to direct the executive or legislative branches of the government in policy-making.

The Supreme Court further noted, “A court cannot direct for a legislation or a policy to be made,” citing precedent and emphasizing the separation of powers inherent in the Indian constitutional framework. This reinforces the court’s stance on maintaining the delicate balance of power among different branches of the government.

The judgment also delved into the specifics of the case involving Air Commodore Sharma, who had challenged the non-acceptance of his promotion to the rank of Air Vice Marshal. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal’s decision to allow Sharma’s continuation in service was “sans basis” and went beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Date of Decision: 14th December 2023

UNION OF INDIA & ORS VS AIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL

 

Latest Legal News