Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

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