A full bench of the Delhi High Court was hearing a reference seeking clarity on whether the right of appeal against Armed Forces Tribunal orders excludes remedy of judicial review by the HC in exercise of its writ. A three-judge bench of Justice Manmohan, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a reference seeking clarity on whether the right of appeal against the final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal excludes the remedy of judicial review by the high court in exercise of its writ A full bench of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, while hearing a reference made by a division bench of the high court, said that orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal can be challenged before the Delhi High Court. A three-judge bench of Justice Manmohan, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a reference seeking clarity on whether the right of appeal against the final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal excludes the remedy of judicial review by the high court in exercise of its writ. The reference was made by a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna based on a difference of opinion between the two different benches in two cases on the said issue. In Wing Commander Shyam Naithani vs. Union of India and Ors., one bench of the high court held that the jurisdiction of the high court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be bypassed by making a provision for direct appeal to the Supreme Court against the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order based on the reason that the apex court exercises jurisdiction under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. The high court had ruled that the Act excludes the “administrative supervision” of the high court under Article 227 of the Constitution but not its “judicial superintendence and certainly not jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution”. In Major Nishant Kaushik vs. Union of India and Ors., another bench of the high court had considered the tenets of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to hold that the appeal against an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal lies only with the Supreme Court. “The HC had while dismissing the petition had concurred with the observations in Shyam Naithani, recognising the remedy of judicial review against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the writ jurisdiction of a high court,” the order states. The full bench thereafter said that the “conclusion is monosemous and there is no difference of opinion in Shyam Naithani (supra) and in Major Nishant Kaushik (supra) as both the decisions reiterate and acknowledge the jurisdiction of the high court for judicial review against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The reference is answered accordingly”. The full bench also considered a 2020 decision of the Supreme Court in Balkrishna Ram vs Union of India and anr. which held that the writ jurisdiction of the high courts for judicial review is not completely ousted by the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the Act.