AFT Not Vested With Civil Contempt Powers For Final Orders; Remedy Lies With High Court U/S 10 Contempt Of Courts Act: Delhi HC
Proceedings conclude with disposal of original application, disobedience of final orders not covered under Section 19; remedy lies before High Court under Contempt of Courts Act
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) does not possess the power to initiate civil contempt proceedings for non-implementation of its final orders. While clarifying the scope of Section 19 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Court noted that once an Original Application (OA) is finally disposed of, the proceedings before the Tribunal come to an end, and any subsequent non-compliance cannot be treated as “interruption or disturbance” of its proceedings.
At the same time, the Division Bench made it clear that authorities cannot ignore or indefinitely delay implementation of AFT orders. Pertinently, the Court held that non-compliance with final AFT orders would fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, thereby ensuring that Tribunal orders remain enforceable through judicial oversight.
In the matter, the Bench was considering whether willful disobedience of final orders passed by the AFT would amount to contempt under Section 19 of the Act. The Court held that Section 19 is confined to acts such as use of insulting or threatening language or causing interruption or disturbance in the proceedings of the Tribunal. Disobedience of a final order, even if contumacious, does not fall within the statutory language of the provision.
Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on the submission by the Union of India, that the Vice-Chiefs of the three Forces emphasised the operational difficulties likely to be faced by the armed services if such power of civil contempt are conferred on the Ld. AFT, observed, “This stand, to our mind, is both unreasonable and unsustainable in law. There can be no question of any “operational difficulties” if orders of the AFT are required to be complied with. If the order is unpalatable to the authorities, remedies by way of judicial review are available. The authorities have only two options with them; to obey the order, or challenge it. Conferment of powers of civil contempt is only to ensure enforcement of judicial orders, and it cannot lie in anyone’s mouth to urge that enforcement of judicial orders results in ‘operational difficulties'. Such a plea, if accepted, would render our entire judicial edifice powerless. We are also not inclined to accord, to the fact that the 2012 Amendment Bill did not go through, more importance than it deserves. We do not know, finally, why it was not tabled. Be that as it may, we have to decide the issue before us on the basis of the existing statutory position. We have humbly attempted to do so”.
“…we are sanguine that there is no want of compassion, in the executive, for the members of our Armed Forces, and any delay or reluctance in implementing the decisions of the AFT would ordinarily be bona fide. We only request the authorities to, if they are aggrieved by any such decision or order, to challenge it in a manner known to law, rather than just leave it unimplemented. The right to challenge a judicial decision is always available, to the citizen as well as the executive. Failure to implement the decision, without challenging it, or, if it is challenged, obtaining any interlocutory or final order impeding its implementation, is completely unacceptable. Our Armed Forces are meant to protect our lives and our borders, and cannot remain embroiled in litigation”, the bench further noted in the judgment.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Rajiv Manglik appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the Division Bench rejecting the argument that proceedings continue until execution of the order, observed that Section 29 of the Act merely states that orders of the Tribunal “shall be executed accordingly” but does not imply that the Tribunal retains seisin of the matter until compliance is achieved.
The Court expressed respectful disagreement with the view taken by the Kerala High Court in A. Shihabudeen v. Principal Controller of Defence 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 4643, which had held that non-implementation of final orders could amount to contempt on the ground that proceedings continue until execution. The Bench held that such an interpretation effectively rewrites Section 19 and blurs the distinction between civil and criminal contempt.
“The finding, of the High Court, that the proceedings continue till the order is executed, to our mind, does not flow from the statute. Section 29, which refers to execution of orders of the AFT, only states that the order would be final and would ‘be executed accordingly’. The AFT does not continue to deal with an OA filed before it till its order is executed. The ‘proceedings’, therefore, come to an end with the disposal of the OA, and do not continue thereafter”, the bench noted.
While ruling out civil contempt jurisdiction in respect of final orders, the Court clarified that Section 19 may still be invoked in appropriate cases involving interim directions, particularly where disobedience disrupts ongoing proceedings before the Tribunal.
“The High Court, therefore, exercises judicial superintendence over the AFT. However, that would not render the AFT a “Court subordinate to” the High Court within the meaning of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act”, it further noted.
Cause Title: Union Of India v. Lt Col Mukul Dev [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1577-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Aakanksha Kaul, Aditya Kashyap, Varun Pratap Singh, Ashima Chopra, Advocates. With Major Anish Muralidhar and Brig Ajeen Kumar.
Respondent: Rajiv Manglik, A.K. Trivedi, Ajit Kakkar and Sonal Singh, Advocates. With Col Mukul Dev.