High Court holds AFT cannot punish disobedience of final orders under Section 19; High Court contempt remedy available

A bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla heard a writ petition by the Union of India challenging a Full Bench judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The petition required interpretation of Sections 19 and 29 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 read with Rule 25 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, and raised the question whether the AFT could punish for non‑implementation of its final orders or had to rely on other remedies.

The High Court summarised the principal holdings and directions. It held that Section 19 of the AFT Act, which penalised "using any insulting or threatening language, or by causing any interruption or disturbance in the proceedings of such Tribunal", was a self‑contained provision and did not empower the AFT to proceed for contempt in respect of disobedience of final orders disposing of a lis. The Court accepted that the AFT could invoke Section 19 where disobedience of an interlocutory direction "interferes with, or disturbs, further proceedings before it", but concluded that non‑compliance with final orders would instead attract the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court further held that Rule 25 recognised the AFT's inherent power "to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders", but that the AFT could not, under Rule 25, incarcerate a recalcitrant officer; the Rule must be given wide scope to secure compliance short of deprivation of liberty. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(i) Section 19 of the AFT Act does not empower the AFT to proceed against any person for disobeying a final order or judgment rendered by it, disposing of a lis. (ii) However, if any disobedience, of any interim order or direction issued by the AFT interferes with, or disturbs, further proceedings before it, the AFT can proceed against the officer responsible, by way of contempt action, under Section 19. (iii) Once the legislature has conferred contempt jurisdiction on the AFT — without categorizing it as ‘civil’ or ‘criminal’ contempt, the AFT cannot be conferred, by judicial fiat, with any additional power of contempt. Section 19 of the AFT Act is, therefore, exhaustive, regarding the power of contempt which the AFT can exercise. (iv) Disobedience of any final order or judgment of the AFT would, however, attract Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and be punishable thereunder. (v) The AFT is, further, empowered, by Rule 25 of the 2008 Rules, to issue all necessary directions or orders to give effect to the orders passed by it, interim as well as final. The AFT cannot, however, deprive any officer, howsoever recalcitrant, of his liberty, in exercise of power under this provision.”

Background

The writ petition arose from a Full Bench judgment dated 31 July 2024 of the AFT, prompted by the fact that 5,612 AFT orders remained unimplemented when the impugned order was passed. The Union of India contended that the AFT lacked power to punish for civil contempt for non‑implementation of its final orders, and that civil contempt could not be conferred by implication or by subordinate rules; the government relied on the withdrawal of a 2012 amendment bill that would have expressly conferred such civil contempt powers. The respondent contended that the AFT, being vested with jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters and exercising trappings of a judicial tribunal, either had contempt powers under Section 19 or, at least, that its orders were enforceable and the High Court could not decline to treat the AFT as within the ambit of Section 10.

The High Court analysed the statutory scheme, Rule 25 and relevant precedents including T. Sudhakar Prasad and decisions on purposive construction of beneficial statutes. It held that the AFT's contempt power was limited to Section 19 and to acts described therein; mere disobedience of a final order could not be read into "causing any interruption or disturbance in the proceedings" because proceedings ordinarily ended with a final order. The Court followed a purposive interpretation of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act to hold that non‑compliance with final AFT orders would attract the High Court's contempt jurisdiction to prevent orders remaining unenforced. The Court accepted the AFT's inherent powers under Rule 25 to issue directions necessary to give effect to its orders, but rejected any power to incarcerate absent statutory authority, and cautioned that contempt proceedings under Section 19 must be exercised sparingly. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.(C) 12769/2024 Case Title: Union of India v. Lt Col Mukul Dev Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, with Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Ms. Ashima Chopra, Advocates; Major Anish Muralidhar and Brig Ajeen Kumar For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Manglik, Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Mr. Ajit Kakkar and Ms. Sonal Singh, Advocates, with Col Mukul Dev