Defence Secretary had recently issued a directive seeking a report and analysis on recent decisions by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Vijay Mohan
Chandigarh, August 4
A directive issued by the Defence Secretary seeking a report and analysis on recent decisions by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has kicked up a controversy, with the Bar terming the move as contemptuous and interference with the administration of justice, and seeking legal action against the officer.
In a letter written to the Chief Justice of India on August 3, the AFT Chandigarh Bench Bar Association has pointed out that the Defence Secretary is a litigant before the AFT and is in fact Respondent No 1 in all cases being heard in the AFT, and such a “direction” and seeking “analysis” or “inputs” on the judicial orders passed by the AFT is direct interference in judicial functioning.
A communication by the D(AFT) Cell of the Ministry of Defence addressed to the Principal Bench of the AFT on behalf of the Defence Secretary last week read, “It is stated that Defence Secretary has directed that a report be prepared on the recent AFT Chandigarh decisions on pay/pension matters with analysis thereof. AFT (PB) is requested to furnish its comments/Inputs regarding the same latest by 28.07.2023 (5 PM).”
Asking the Chief Justice to take suo-moto cognizance of its letter-petition and initiate appropriate proceedings against the officer concerned for directly interfering in the judicial functioning of the AFT, the Bar has termed the communication to be not only contemptuous, but also illegal, unethical and against the spirit of Article 50 of the Constitution of India.
“We strongly protest and object to the Defence Secretary passing directions and orders to a judicial body or treating the AFT as a department under the MoD while in reality it is meant to be an independent statutory tribunal governed by an Act of Parliament to render justice to serving and retired soldiers and their families,” the Bar wrote in its letter.
In fact, in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court the MoD cannot even be the parent administrative ministry of the AFT and its infrastructural and other support must come from the Ministry of Law and Justice or at best the Ministry of Finance, till the National Tribunal Commission is created as directed by the Apex Court, the letter added.
Stating that seeking analysis of judgments from a judicial body since adverse orders are being passed against an official litigant amounts to browbeating of a court and cannot be taken lightly by the legal community or be overlooked, the Bar averred that since the Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court pass orders against various government departments with far-reaching consequences almost every day, this move would give a license to the secretaries of other ministries to direct courts and tribunals to report to them with ‘inputs’, ‘comments’ and ‘analysis, which is absolutely uncalled for and unheard of.
It also contravenes the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary as endorsed vide UN General Assembly resolutions as well as the Independence and impartiality of the Judiciary, Jurors and Assessors and the Independence of Lawyers endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council resolution.
The Bar also pointed out that in a similar matter relating to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the Supreme Court had convicted the Secretary concerned for criminal contempt for sending communications to the ITAT and interfering its judicial functioning.