The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that disputes concerning selection and recruitment to the Indian Army, prior to formal induction under the Army Act, 1950, fall entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal. This ruling resolves a growing conflict between civil courts and the Tribunal over the scope of its statutory mandate, reinforcing that jurisdictional boundaries must be strictly construed under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Vikram Singh Gurjar, a candidate who applied for recruitment to the Indian Army, was rejected during the selection process. He contended that the selection procedure was arbitrary and violated principles of equality and fair play under Article 14 of the Constitution. He filed a writ petition before the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking quashing of the selection outcome and direction for a fresh process.
Procedural History
- 2019: Writ Petition No. 23209/2019 filed before the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- 12 December 2019: The writ petition was dismissed on grounds of maintainability, with the learned Single Judge holding that the dispute pertained to military recruitment and thus lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
- 2020: Writ Appeal No. 452 of 2020 filed challenging the dismissal order.
- January 2026: Full Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, delivered a landmark decision in Kaptan Singh v. Union of India, holding that recruitment disputes occurring before induction under the Army Act, 1950, are not 'service matters' under Section 3(o) of the AFT Act.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of his writ petition for adjudication on merits, arguing that the AFT lacks jurisdiction over pre-induction recruitment disputes.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a dispute relating to selection and rejection in military recruitment, prior to a candidate being subject to the Army Act, 1950, constitutes a 'service matter' within the meaning of Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, thereby vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant relied on the Full Bench decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Kaptan Singh v. Union of India, which held that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction arises only after a person is formally inducted and becomes subject to the Army Act, Navy Act, or Air Force Act. He argued that recruitment is a pre-service stage governed by general administrative law and constitutional principles, not military service law. He further contended that the writ court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was erroneous and deprived the petitioner of his right to remedy under Article 226.
For the Respondent/State
The Dy. Solicitor General conceded the correctness of the Full Bench decision in Kaptan Singh. He acknowledged that the AFT has no jurisdiction over selection processes occurring before formal induction and accepted that the impugned order was legally unsustainable in light of the subsequent authoritative interpretation. He did not oppose the revival of the writ petition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful examination of the statutory framework under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, particularly Section 3(o), which defines 'service matters' as disputes arising after a person becomes subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, or the Air Force Act, 1950. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to confine the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to matters of service, discipline, and conditions of service of persons already in uniform.
"The jurisdiction of this Tribunal would arise only if the 'service matters', as defined in Section 3(o) of the AFT Act, come into existence i.e. when a person has been subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 or the Air Force Act, 1950, as the case may be..."
The Court noted that the Full Bench of the AFT had thoroughly analyzed the legislative history, statutory language, and judicial precedents - including the Allahabad High Court’s decision - and concluded that recruitment is a pre-service, non-service matter. The Court found no reason to depart from this authoritative interpretation. It further observed that the writ court’s dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds was based on an outdated understanding of the AFT’s scope, which had since been authoritatively corrected.
The Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable and must be set aside. It directed the revival of the original writ petition for adjudication on its merits, stressing that the petitioner’s constitutional right to challenge arbitrary state action under Article 226 must not be extinguished by a misapplication of jurisdictional boundaries.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Court held that recruitment disputes occurring before induction under the Army Act, 1950, do not constitute 'service matters' under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and therefore lie within the jurisdiction of civil courts. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for adjudication on merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Recruitment Disputes Belong in Civil Courts
- Practitioners must now file writ petitions under Article 226 in High Courts for challenges to selection, rejection, or procedural irregularities in military recruitment, even for Army/Navy/Air Force posts.
- Avoid filing before the AFT in pre-induction cases - such filings will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
AFT Jurisdiction Is Strictly Post-Induction
- The AFT’s jurisdiction is triggered only after a person is formally inducted and becomes subject to the Army, Navy, or Air Force Act.
- Any dispute arising from selection, medical fitness, physical standards, or interview processes prior to commissioning is outside the Tribunal’s purview.
Judicial Precedent Overrides Local Interpretations
- Lower courts must follow authoritative Full Bench decisions of the AFT, even if they conflict with earlier rulings.
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s reliance on Kaptan Singh reinforces that statutory interpretation must align with legislative intent, not isolated phrases.
