Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, December 21, 2024

Establish Regional Bench of AFT In The State Within 4 Months: Uttarakhand High Court To Centre

Posted in: General Practice
Fri, Jun 29, 18, 09:19, 7 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 30 - hits: 5574
Uttarakhand High Court in the landmark case of Lalit Kumar v Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 203 of 2014 dated 12 June 2018 directed the Centre to establish a Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand within four months.

To begin with, in a landmark judgment with far reaching consequences which shall ensure that all those litigants hailing from the hilly state of Uttarakhand who had to earlier go from Uttarakhand to very far away place like Lucknow, the Uttarakhand High Court has pronounced a landmark verdict just recently. The Uttarakhand High Court in the landmark case of Lalit Kumar v Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 203 of 2014 dated 12 June 2018 directed the Centre to establish a Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand within four months. This has certainly galvanized all those people from the hilly state of Uttarakhand who were earlier compelled to travel so far away to Lucknow just for attending court hearings!

While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the Bench of Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Lok Pal Singh while pronouncing the landmark judgment observed that, "We, as a nation, are proud of the armed forces. The sacrifices made by the armed forces personnel during the active war and in peace cannot be forgotten. It is the duty cast upon the society as a whole to ensure that their grievances are redressed immediately. The Central Government cannot deny issuing notification for establishment of Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand on the pretext of huge expenditure. It is the duty of the Central Government to provide speedy justice to its citizens more particularly to the ex-servicemen." Absolutely right! The Central Government must now stop coughing out excuses for not creating a Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in the State of Uttarakhand and should implement the landmark judgment delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court.

For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Uttarakhand High Court was hearing a petition filed by ex-serviceman and practicing advocate Mr Lalit Kumar, contending that it becomes difficult for serving as well as retired ex-servicemen to access the Armed Forces Tribunal at Lucknow. The petition had been filed for the establishment of a permanent Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand. According to the averments made in the petition, it is difficult for the serving as well as retired ex-servicemen to have access to the Armed Forces Tribunal at Lucknow.

It would be imperative to mention here that the Regional Bench at Lucknow was constituted in November 2009, and initially had jurisdiction over the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Chhatisgarh. Thereafter, in May 2016, a Regional Bench at Jabalpur was constituted with jurisdiction within the territorial limits of the States of Chhatisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. The question that naturally arises here is: When a Regional Bench can be created at Jabalpur then why can't a Regional Bench be created at Nainital?

To be sure, the Uttarakhand High Court now noted that 220 cases of the State of Uttarakhand are pending before the Lucknow Bench, and attributed the low figure to the inconveniences faced by the litigants in approaching the Bench. So this perennial problem had to be addressed now to provide a lasting solution to it. The Bench of Uttarakhand High Court opined that, "The reason for low pendency of the cases in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow might be that most of the litigants have waived/sacrificed their legal rights in non approaching the Armed Force Tribunal Act as is difficult for the serving armed forces personnel as well as ex-servicemen including widows and minors to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal Bench at Lucknow, taking into consideration the geographical and hilly terrain of the Uttarakhand State."

Going forward, the Court further refused to accept concerns of there being heavy expenditure in establishing a Bench of the Tribunal, noting that the difficulties being faced by the armed forces personnel need to be taken into consideration. It also asserted that, "The access to justice within a reasonable cost is the underlying principle of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. If the Central Government is concerned about the expenditure incurred on the Circuit Bench, the plight of the armed forces personnel to go too far of Lucknow cannot be undermined. It is very difficult for the armed forces personnel and the ex-servicemen including widows and minors to espouse their grievance by going to Lucknow."

Simply put, the Uttarakhand High Court reiterates in para 10 of the landmark judgment that, "This Court had been emphasizing upon the Central Government to have a permanent bench in the State of Uttarakhand taking into consideration, the highest density of servicemen employed from the State of Uttarakhand including large segment of retired armed forces personnel, ex-navy men and ex-air force personnel. Several prime offices like The Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, Garhwal Regimental Centre, Gorkha Regimental Centre, Kumaon Regimental Centre, Ranikhet Cantonment, Pithoragarh Cantonment, Joshimath Cantonment, Chakrata Cantonment are situated in the State of Uttarakhand. The purpose of constituting Armed Forces Tribunal is to provide speedy justice to the armed forces personnel. The armed forces personnel cannot approach the civil courts including the high courts as per Section 33 of the Act. The pending matters have also been transferred under Section 34 of the Act. In the counter affidavit, it is highlighted that Government incurs heavy expenditure for the Circuit Bench to come to Nainital. The access to justice within a reasonable cost is the underlying principle of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. If the Central Government is concerned about the expenditure incurred on the Circuit Bench, the plight of the armed forces personnel to go to far of Lucknow cannot be undermined. It is very difficult for the armed forces personnel and the ex-servicemen including widows and minors to espouse their grievance by going to Lucknow. In case, there is a permanent Bench in the State of Uttarakhand, the number of cases would also automatically go up. The number may be low today but it is likely to increase with the passage of time. The Central Government is empowered, under sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act, to establish Benches by issuing a necessary Notification. Speedy justice is the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We, as a nation, are proud of the armed forces. The sacrifices made by the armed forces personnel during the active war and in peace cannot be forgotten. It is the duty cast upon the society as a whole to ensure that their grievances are redressed immediately. The Central Government cannot deny issuing notification for establishment of Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand on the pretext of huge expenditure. It is the duty of the Central Government to provide speedy justice to its citizens more particularly to the ex-servicemen."

It would be pertinent to also mention here that para 11 of this landmark judgment makes it a point to specifically observe that, "It is apt to note here that considering the pendency of cases the Central Government already decided to notify the Circuit Bench at Nainital. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that there is a requirement of Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand. Easy access of justice is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Rightly said! There can be no denying or disputing it!

Last but not the least, para 12 finally disposes of the petition observing that, "Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Central Government to issue notification for establishment of Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand, at an appropriate place, taking into consideration the availability of infrastructure, within a period of four months from today. Till the issuance of Notification of Regional Bench, the Circuit Bench shall hold the proceedings every month at Nainital."

All said and done, it is an excellent and an exemplary judgment. Centre must promptly implement whatever the 2 Judge Bench of Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Lok Pal Singh have directed in their 13 page landmark judgment. Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal must be established within four months as directed in this landmark judgment! Centre should waste no further time in implementing it. It is unquestionable that this is the crying need of the hour also!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
India is going on grate path of welfare-state. Mahatma Gandhi's greatest ambition for India was to wipe every tear from every eye
Social justice means a way of life with liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.
BJP after always repeatedly assuring the lawyers of West UP that they will make sure that a high court bench is created soon here as soon as it comes to power has reneged on its tall promises and has done virtually nothing on this score till now
To start with, I say this not as a lawyer of West UP but as a good citizen of India that the unending protest of lawyers of West UP severely affects the litigants who have to wait repeatedly to get justice. But who is responsible for this
It is most baffling to note that Centre since 1947 till 2018 has consistently, callously, blatantly and brazenly disregarded the numerous hardships faced by the more than 9 crore people of West UP in travelling nearly 700 to 750 km
West UP which deserved statehood right since 1947 has not even a single bench of a high court since last more than 70 years
High Court of Kerala has in a historic move directed the Indian Railways to treat identity cards issued to lawyers by respective Bar Councils as a valid identity proof to undertake a train journey/travel.
Constitution of Special District Courts to try cases as per the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Foreign law Firms cannot Practice in India, but they are free to give legal advice regarding foreign law on diverse international legal issues on a fly in and fly out basis if it does not amount to practice.
Each and every person who is humane whether he/she is Indian or Pakistani or anyone else is overjoyed on learning the news of the release of Abhinandan
crime against women are multiplying most rapidly in UP and this is most felt in West UP which is the worst affected of all the regions of UP.
In our country around 5 lakh accidents take place every year and 1.5 lakh deaths occur. In world highest number of deaths due to the accidents take place in India. It is our responsibility to control these deaths and promote road safety.
It was decided unanimously by all the lawyers of 22 districts of West UP to go on strike on November 25, 2019 and observe it as  protest day. The lawyers of West UP are not happy with the statement of Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad about the creation of a high court bench in West UP
parents of a married son are not entitled to claim filial compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Rambabu Singh Thakur v/s Sunil Arora serious note of the increase in the number of tainted candidates facing criminal cases entering politics. It has issued a slew of directions in this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment which we shall discuss later.
J&K High Court Bar Association v. UOI dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought prohibition of use of pellet guns. How long can security forces restrain themselves if public becomes unruly and start pelting stones, bottles and what not
Harmanbhai Umedbhai Patel vs Bindu Kumar Mohanlal Shahupheld an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) dismissing a complaint alleging professional misconduct by a lawyer. There was no professional misconduct found on the part of the lawyer.
Kangana Ranaut vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from carrying out any further demolition at Kangana Ranaut's residence in Bandra
The Telangana Fire Works Dealers Association vs. P Indra Prakash has modified the order of the Telangana High Court which imposed a complete and immediate ban on the sale and use of firecrackers across the state during Diwali to fall in line with the directions imposed by the National Green Tribunal on November 9
The non-availability of birth certificate is issued when the person does not have a birth proof. One can visit the municipal corporation, gram panchayat or chief medical officer in the area where he or she is born and apply for this document, showing address proof and proofs of 2 more witnesses on an affidavit.
M. Thangaraj (Ex. MC) v. The District Collector, Dindigul to follow the ritual of taking a procession around the temple (Girivalam) has recently on January 18, 2021 observed that all the religious processions should spread positivity and brotherhood and in no manner should be a cause for any communal disturbance.
K Raju v. UOI only senior citizens/parents are entitled to file an appeal against an order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to take action against people found slaughtering cattle including cows and/or exhibiting for sale flesh of slaughtered cattle and/or selling cattle meat.
Legal Industry and the Enhancement of the Technology Towards the Progressive Development In An Amicable Manner
Omnarayan Sharma Vs MP issued directions to the District Legal Services Authorities and the State Authority for ensuring implementation of poverty alleviation schemes promulgated under provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and NALSA
Javed v Uttar Pradesh that the cow should be declared the national animal and cow protection should be made a fundamental right of the Hindus because we know that when the country's culture and its faith get hurt, the country becomes weak.
The ‘Green Channel’ is an automated and transparent system for gaining approval for certain type and combination of mergers and acquisition.
Hasae @ Hasana Wae vs UP that dilution of constitutional autonomy of the High Courts would threaten the concept of judicial federalism envisaged in the Constitution and affirmed by judicial precedents.
Madhya Pradesh vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti that the presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple and Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity.
Alkesh Vs MP in a case under SC/ST Act, the caste of the complainant is of paramount importance and is a sine qua non and that it can't be assumed that the complainant would forget to mention in the FIR that the assailants had made aspersions against his caste.
The non-availability of birth certificate is a document to register unregistered birth. It can also be used in case the applicant has lost his birth certificate to a fire, flood or any other reason.
a Dalit man named Lakhbir Singh aged 35 years who was a food server with no political affiliation of any kind or any past criminal record would first be beaten black
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Kapil Sibal states The whole Act is an attempt to aggrandize the power of the State.
Char Dham Highway expansion in full court room exchange took the extremely commendable, clear, cogent, composed, courageous and convincing stand that concerns of defence forces cannot be overridden.
Bindu v. Allahabad that as per Article 233(2), a person seeking appointment as a District Judge must be practicing as an advocate for continuous 7 years (without any break) on the date of application.
TC Gupta v. UOI that the petitioner-advocate who in more than one matters, has indulged in filing Original Applications in the Tribunal as well as writ petitions in the High Court and has personally signed the pleadings etc without having been specifically authorized in this regard by the litigants which cannot be glossed over.
Swaran Kaur vs Punjab that entitlement for the grant of family pension to the dependent parents needs to be seen after the widow or the children loose their eligibility for the grant of the said benefit.
Zubair Ahmed Teli Vs. Union Territory of J&K that there is no requirement of prior consideration of the social investigation report by Juvenile Justice Board while considering a bail plea under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act,
Chandrashekhar R vs Karnataka that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution embodies the principle of religious tolerance which is a characteristic of Indian civilization disposed of a public interest litigation alleging that the contents of Azan
Suresh Kumar vs CP upholding the dismissal of a police head constable who was caught with 75 dirhams while on duty of checking passengers passports of the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 1996, observing that the police officers who break law must be dealt with iron hands.
Mohd Abdul Khaliq Vs UP that the Central Government would take the request appropriate decision to ban cow slaughter in the country and to declare the same as a protected national animal.
Nikhil Singh Vs UOI that: As would be evident from the chart supplied by Dr KN Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, most of the Airports/Airstrips in the State of Bihar are non-functional.
While striking entirely the right chord as the lawyers anticipated also, we saw how just recently it was none other than the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Dr Adish C Aggarwala who recently got elected as President after surpassing many of his strong competitors with most strongest being Mr Dushyant Dave
Al Tawaf Hajj And Umrah Travel And Tourism vs UoI that: Haj Pilgrimage and the ceremonies involved therein and the ceremonies involved therein fall within the ambit of a religious practice, which is protected by the Constitution of India.
It is ‘shockingly bizarre’ that UP has maximum pending cases among all States that is more than 10 lakhs in High Courts and about a crore in lower courts and has maximum population
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs BN Magon that an advocate’s office run from a residential building is not subject to property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as a business building.
Meena Pradhan vs Kamla Pradhan that a will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act.
Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much, recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man/woman
Top