No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

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