Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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