In Brief
The Supreme Court clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between High Courts and the Armed Forces Tribunal. A soldier seeking appointment was discharged after failing an aptitude test and subsequently lost a High Court case. The Court held that appeals pending in a High Court against a single judge's order need not be transferred to the AFT—only original matters do. The Court reaffirmed that the High Court's power of judicial review under Articles 226-227 is a basic constitutional structure feature that cannot be excluded by legislation, even where tribunals are established. Although High Courts may exercise discretion not to entertain petitions when alternative remedies exist, this is prudential restraint, not jurisdictional ouster. The AFT, though possibly staffed by retired judges, cannot be deemed equivalent to a High Court. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant's case had been considered for alternative postings but he failed to meet the requirements.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.