The Allahabad High Court has definitively held that challenges to orders issued by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in New Delhi can only be entertained by the Delhi High Court, irrespective of where the petitioner resides or where the cause of action arose. This ruling reinforces the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India, clarifying that territorial jurisdiction over AFT decisions is determined solely by the location of the Tribunal bench, not by the petitioner’s residence or the origin of the dispute.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, former service personnel of the Indian Armed Forces, were discharged from service on academic grounds. They filed Original Applications (OAs) before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, seeking quashing of their discharge orders and reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back pay, pension, and seniority.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were discharged on academic grounds, not for misconduct or disciplinary reasons
- The OAs were heard together with other similar cases before the Principal Bench, New Delhi
- The Tribunal dismissed all OAs by order dated 19.09.2025, holding them devoid of merit
- The petitioners filed the present writ petition (Writ-A No. 2923 of 2026) before the Allahabad High Court on 28.03.2026
- Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are residents of Uttar Pradesh; Petitioner No. 1 (Sachin Kumar) is not a resident of Uttar Pradesh
- Rule 6(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 permits filing of OAs before the Tribunal bench within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is ordinarily residing at the time of filing
Procedural History
- Date of discharge: Not specified in judgment, but occurred prior to filing of OAs
- Date of filing OAs: Not specified, but heard and decided by AFT Principal Bench
- 19.09.2025: AFT Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissed all OAs
- 28.03.2026: Writ Petition filed before Allahabad High Court challenging the AFT order
- 02.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that under Rule 6(2) of the AFT Procedure Rules, 2008, they could have filed their OAs before the Lucknow Bench (as they resided in Uttar Pradesh), and therefore, the Allahabad High Court has jurisdiction to review the order of the Principal Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Respondents (Union of India): Contended that the order impugned was passed by the Principal Bench of the AFT in New Delhi, and under binding Supreme Court precedent, only the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain challenges to such orders.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the AFT order dated 19.09.2025
- Reinstatement with full consequential benefits including pay, pension, seniority, and arrears
- Direction to the AFT to re-adjudicate their applications
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court at Allahabad has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in New Delhi, when the petitioners are residents of Uttar Pradesh and could have filed their Original Applications before the Lucknow Bench under Rule 6(2) of the AFT Procedure Rules, 2008.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on Rule 6(2) of the AFT Procedure Rules, 2008, which permits filing of OAs before the Tribunal bench within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is ordinarily residing. They argued that since the petitioners could have filed their OAs before the Lucknow Bench, the Allahabad High Court, being the High Court within whose jurisdiction Lucknow falls, should have jurisdiction to review the order of the Principal Bench. They cited Punjab National Bank v. Shri Sakhroo Ram, Paritosh Kumar v. Union of India, U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mills Limited v. State of U.P., and Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Authority to support the proposition that jurisdiction should be determined by the locus of the cause of action or residence.
For the Respondent
The Additional Solicitor General contended that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay had conclusively held that challenges to orders of any AFT bench must be filed before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal bench that passed the order is located. The fact that the petitioners could have filed their OAs elsewhere under Rule 6(2) is irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the High Court to review the final order. The judgment in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India was also cited to show that residence of the petitioner does not confer jurisdiction on a High Court to review an order of the Principal Bench.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133, which was delivered by a Constitution Bench and interpreted the landmark decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court had categorically held that "all decisions of these Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls." This principle is not subject to reinterpretation by individual High Courts based on the facts of the case.
"The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution."
The Court observed that the petitioners’ reliance on Rule 6(2) of the AFT Procedure Rules, 2008, which governs where an OA may be filed, is entirely distinct from the question of where a writ petition may be filed to challenge the final order of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay explicitly ruled that High Courts must not delve into the "bundle of facts" relating to the cause of action or residence when determining jurisdiction over AFT orders.
The Court further distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioners:
- Parashotam Dass dealt with maintainability of writ petitions against AFT orders, not territorial jurisdiction.
- Paritosh Kumar concerned the maintainability of proceedings before the Principal Seat versus Benches.
- U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mills and Nasiruddin related to Article 226(2) and were expressly overruled in Alapan Bandyopadhyay.
- Sakhroo Ram involved appellate jurisdiction across states, which is not analogous to the AFT’s structure.
The Court concluded that the only relevant factor is the location of the Tribunal bench that passed the impugned order - here, the Principal Bench in New Delhi. Therefore, the Delhi High Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the challenge.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Allahabad High Court held that it cannot entertain a challenge to an order passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in New Delhi. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the Delhi High Court for judicial review of the order dated 19.09.2025. No monetary relief or direction for reinstatement was granted, as the petition was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Fixed by Tribunal Seat, Not Petitioner’s Residence
- Practitioners must file writ petitions challenging AFT orders only before the High Court where the Tribunal bench that issued the order is located
- Even if the petitioner resides in another state or could have filed the OA elsewhere under Rule 6(2), jurisdiction remains with the High Court of the Tribunal’s seat
- This applies uniformly to all tribunals established under Articles 323A and 323B
Rule 6(2) Governs Filing, Not Review
- Rule 6(2) of the AFT Procedure Rules determines where an Original Application may be filed - not where a writ petition may be filed
- The two are legally distinct: one is procedural (filing), the other is constitutional (review)
- Attempting to use residence or cause of action to establish jurisdiction over an AFT order will result in dismissal
Precedent Overrides Local Interpretations
-
High Courts cannot create exceptions based on convenience, equity, or factual convenience
-
Alapan Bandyopadhyay is binding and leaves no room for judicial discretion on territorial jurisdiction
-
Any petition filed in the wrong High Court must be transferred or dismissed, not adjudicated on merits
-
Practitioners must verify the location of the Tribunal bench before filing any writ petition
-
Litigants should be advised to file in Delhi High Court for all challenges to orders of the AFT Principal Bench, regardless of domicile
-
Failure to comply will result in dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, causing avoidable delay and cost
