RAVINDRA NATH TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question is raised by the respondents whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the AFT Act). The petitioner has approached this Court for relief against the order dated 27-7-2000 imposing a punishment of discharge from service on him. In addition he has questioned the constitutionality of sections 82, 83, 84 and 86 of the Air Force Act, 1950 being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Rules 24 and 31 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India; section 50(b) of the Air force Act 1950 being ultra vires Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 being ultra vires Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) According to the respondents the petitioner has equally efficacious alternative remedy under section 14 of the AFT Act, which enables a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal for redressal. Since the question raised on behalf of the respondents is of general importance we requested Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court as amicus curiae.

(3.) According to the amicus curiae and the respondents, section 14 of the AFT Act provides an alternative remedy to the petitioner even when he challenges the constitutional validity of provisions of a statute such as Air Force Act, 1950. The main submission of Shri Tiwari is based on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 1997 1 MPLJ 621, wherein the question raised was whether Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations is questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handling matters where constitutional issues are not involved. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the matters relating to constitutional validity of statute cannot be raised before the Tribunals. The Supreme Court observed as follows:--