Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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