{"id":11839,"date":"2025-11-17T06:58:10","date_gmt":"2025-11-17T06:58:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11839"},"modified":"2025-11-29T07:58:29","modified_gmt":"2025-11-29T07:58:29","slug":"union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Parashotam Dass (2023) SCC Online SC 31"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (2023) revisits one of the most contested questions in Indian constitutional law: the relationship between specialised tribunals and the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Conflicting_Precedents\" >Conflicting Precedents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Significance_of_Parashotam_Dass\" >Significance of Parashotam Dass<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Legal_Background\" >Legal Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#3_Facts_of_the_Case\" >3. Facts of the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#4_Appellants_Arguments\" >4. Appellants\u2019 Arguments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#5_Respondents_Arguments\" >5. Respondent\u2019s Arguments<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Key_Constitutional_Principles_Cited\" >Key Constitutional Principles Cited<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Criticism_of_Major_General_Shri_Kant_Sharma_Reasoning\" >Criticism of Major General Shri Kant Sharma Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Interpretation_of_Article_2274\" >Interpretation of Article 227(4)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Statutory_Interpretation\" >Statutory Interpretation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Judicial_Self-Restraint_of_High_Courts\" >Judicial Self-Restraint of High Courts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Support_from_Precedent\" >Support from Precedent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Core_Legal_Thrust_Summarised\" >Core Legal Thrust Summarised<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#6_The_Judgement\" >6. The Judgement<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Judicial_Review_as_Part_of_Basic_Structure\" >Judicial Review as Part of Basic Structure<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Clarification_on_Article_2274\" >Clarification on Article 227(4)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Deficiency_in_Appellate_Architecture\" >Deficiency in Appellate Architecture<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Overruling_Prior_Precedent\" >Overruling Prior Precedent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Scope_of_Judicial_Review\" >Scope of Judicial Review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Statutory_Preservation_of_HC_Jurisdiction\" >Statutory Preservation of HC Jurisdiction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Protection_of_Effective_Remedy\" >Protection of Effective Remedy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Final_Holding\" >Final Holding<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Analysis\" >Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Positive_Features_of_the_Judgment\" >Positive Features of the Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Drawbacks_from_a_Military_Justice_Perspective\" >Drawbacks from a Military Justice Perspective<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/union-of-india-vs-parashotam-dass-2023-scc-online-sc-31\/#Judicial_Restraint_and_Balance\" >Judicial Restraint and Balance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The case arose against the backdrop of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which created a specialised forum for adjudicating service disputes of armed forces personnel, while providing only a limited appellate path to the Supreme Court under Section 31.<\/p>\n<p>This statutory design soon generated a constitutional controversy\u2014whether the existence of the Tribunal ousts or restricts the High Courts\u2019 power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"conflicting-precedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conflicting_Precedents\"><\/span>Conflicting Precedents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)<\/strong> had categorically held that judicial review by High Courts is part of the Constitution\u2019s basic structure and cannot be ousted.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Major General Shri Kant Sharma v. Union of India (2015)<\/strong> appeared to narrow that position in the specific context of armed forces service disputes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The resulting uncertainty left both litigants and courts divided on the maintainability of writ petitions arising out of AFT orders.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"significance-of-parashotam-dass\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Significance_of_Parashotam_Dass\"><\/span>Significance of Parashotam Dass<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Against this backdrop, Parashotam Dass became the lead matter in a batch of cases that compelled the Supreme Court to address the tension between tribunalisation and constitutional remedies.<\/p>\n<p>The dispute itself arose from an individual service claim where the AFT had denied relief, but the High Court intervened under Article 226 to grant it, prompting the Union to challenge the maintainability of such writ proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>More than the individual grievance, the case thus symbolised a systemic issue: the proper constitutional placement of the Armed Forces Tribunal within India\u2019s judicial architecture.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consequently holds significance not only for military personnel seeking redress but also for, the integrity of the basic structure, and the functioning of tribunals across India.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"legal-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Background\"><\/span>Legal Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal trajectory culminating in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass is best understood against the backdrop of India\u2019s experiment with establishment of tribunals and the tension between specialised tribunals and constitutional courts.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalservicesindia.com\/law\/article\/2454\/21\/Armed-Forces-Tribunal-Act-Cannot-Curtail-High-Court%E2%80%99s-Power-Of-Judicial-Review-U-A-226-Allahabad-HC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007<\/a> was enacted pursuant to the long-felt need for a dedicated judicial forum for service matters of personnel in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This need had been consistently underscored in judicial dicta such as <em>Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India (1982)<\/em>[1], where the Supreme Court lamented the absence of an appellate body in military justice, and in successive Law Commission reports recommending a specialised tribunal[2].<\/p>\n<p>The AFT Act created a forum with:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Original jurisdiction over \u201cservice matters\u201d (defined broadly under Section 3(o))<\/li>\n<li>Appellate jurisdiction over court-martial decisions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It also provided a restricted appellate path to the Supreme Court under Section 31\u2014permitting appeal only on a \u201cpoint of law of general public importance\u201d or upon certification. By design, the Act did not confer any appellate role on the High Courts, raising the constitutional question whether recourse to Articles 226 could survive this exclusion.<\/p>\n<p>Here the earlier jurisprudence on tribunals becomes vital. In <em>S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)<\/em>[3], the Court had upheld tribunalisation in principle but subjected it to the condition that the tribunal must be an effective alternative institutional mechanism for the High Courts.<\/p>\n<p>However, the Constitution Bench in <em>L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)<\/em>[4] altered the terrain fundamentally by holding that judicial review under Articles 226 by the High Courts and under Article 32 by the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure, and hence cannot be ousted by legislation. While L. Chandra Kumar arose in the context of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, its logic was equally applicable to the AFT regime.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Article 227(4)[5] of the Constitution provided that nothing in that article shall be deemed to confer on the High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. This provision complicated matters: did it extinguish writ powers in service disputes of armed forces personnel, or did it merely restrict administrative superintendence while leaving Article 226 untouched?<\/p>\n<p>Parallel strands of jurisprudence on military justice added further complexity. In <em>S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990)<\/em>, the Supreme Court had held that court-martial decisions were subject to judicial review[6], and that reasons must be recorded in such proceedings to facilitate that review.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, by the time of the AFT\u2019s creation, there was already a firmly entrenched principle that while military discipline warranted deference, constitutional courts could intervene in cases of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or breach of fundamental rights.<\/p>\n<p>Subsequent rulings reflected the unease in reconciling these principles with the statutory scheme of the AFT. For instance, in <em>Major General Shri Kant Sharma v. Union of India (2015)<\/em>[7], a two-judge bench appeared to suggest that High Court writ jurisdiction stood substantially curtailed in service matters once the AFT was established. This reading created confusion, as it seemingly diluted the sweep of L. Chandra Kumar and gave rise to conflicting High Court practices across the country.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, broader jurisprudence on tribunals\u2014such as the Supreme Court\u2019s analysis in <em>Union of India v. R. Gandhi<\/em>[8] (2010) concerning the National Company Law Tribunal\u2014kept reiterating that while tribunals could validly exercise judicial functions, the power of constitutional courts under Articles 226 and 32 remained unassailable.<\/p>\n<p>It is in this unsettled and contested doctrinal context\u2014shaped by the 2007 AFT Act, Article 227(4)\u2019s specific exclusion, L. Chandra Kumar\u2019s insistence on the primacy of writ review, and inconsistent judicial pronouncements like Shri Kant Sharma\u2014that the dispute in <em>Union of India v. Parashotam Dass<\/em> arose, making it necessary to revisit the scope of High Court writ jurisdiction over matters decided by the Armed Forces Tribunal.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"facts-of-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Facts_of_the_Case\"><\/span>3. Facts of the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The dispute in <em>Union of India v. Parashotam Dass<\/em>[9] arose from service-related grievances of Parashotam Dass, who had served in the armed forces and, upon retirement, became embroiled in a conflict over his pensionary and service benefits. Dass approached the AFT challenging the Union\u2019s determination of his entitlements, asserting that the calculation of his qualifying service and fixation of pension was erroneous and contrary to the applicable regulations.<\/p>\n<p>The AFT, however, declined to grant him the relief sought, upholding the Union\u2019s position and dismissing his plea. Aggrieved, Dass invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226, filing a writ petition against the AFT\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Entertained the petition<\/li>\n<li>Examined the merits<\/li>\n<li>Granted relief and set aside the adverse determination<\/li>\n<li>Directed the Union to extend pensionary benefits<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction due to the limited appellate framework under Sections 30\u201331 of the AFT Act.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"appellants-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Appellants_Arguments\"><\/span>4. Appellants\u2019 Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The appellants, Union of India, argued that Section 30[12] and Section 31 of the Act provided a well-defined appellate mechanism, allowing appeals to the Supreme Court only in cases involving &#8220;a point of law of general public importance.&#8221;[13] This, they claimed, struck a deliberate balance between ensuring judicial oversight in significant matters and preserving the specialized nature of AFT decisions in routine service matters.<\/p>\n<p>They further emphasized:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Article 227(4)[14] excludes High Courts\u2019 supervisory jurisdiction over military tribunals<\/li>\n<li>Permitting Article 226 writs would dilute finality of AFT decisions<\/li>\n<li><em>Major General Shri Kant Sharma<\/em>[15] supports exclusivity of AFT adjudication<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>They asserted that armed forces discipline required a distinct adjudicatory mechanism insulated from civilian judicial interference, to safeguard national security and efficiency[16].<\/p>\n<p>The appellants also argued that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The exclusion of High Court jurisdiction does not violate the Constitution\u2019s basic structure<\/li>\n<li>Judicial review still exists\u2014through the Supreme Court under Section 31<\/li>\n<li>Allowing writs would encourage forum shopping and inconsistent rulings<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>They urged the Supreme Court to uphold the AFT framework as a complete and exclusive system for adjudicating armed forces matters, barring writ petitions under Article 226[17][18][19].<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"respondents-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Respondents_Arguments\"><\/span>5. Respondent\u2019s Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The respondents, represented by Parashotam Dass, argued that Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 could not, by implication or design, oust the High Courts\u2019 constitutional power of judicial review under Article 226, and that any construing of the Act to that effect would offend the Constitution\u2019s basic structure.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"key-constitutional-principles\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Constitutional_Principles_Cited\"><\/span>Key Constitutional Principles Cited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Judicial review under Articles 226\/32 is an essential feature of the constitutional scheme and cannot be removed by statute (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India<sup>[20]<\/sup>).<\/li>\n<li>High Courts retain the power to grant relief in service\/courts-martial matters where there is:\n<ul>\n<li>Denial of fundamental rights<\/li>\n<li>Jurisdictional error<\/li>\n<li>Error of law apparent on the face of the record<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(S.N. Mukherjee<sup>[21]<\/sup>)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"criticism-of-major-general-shri-kant-sharma\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Criticism_of_Major_General_Shri_Kant_Sharma_Reasoning\"><\/span>Criticism of Major General Shri Kant Sharma Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Inconsistent with the authority of the Constitution<\/li>\n<li>Practical injustice caused by leaving many litigants without remedy<\/li>\n<li>Section 31 leaves recourse to Supreme Court only on \u201cpoints of law of general public importance\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"interpretation-of-article-2274\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interpretation_of_Article_2274\"><\/span>Interpretation of Article 227(4)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>They submitted that Article 227(4) merely protects the Armed Forces from administrative superintendence; it does not, and constitutionally cannot, extinguish writ review.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"statutory-interpretation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Interpretation\"><\/span>Statutory Interpretation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Sections 30\u201331 show a legislative policy of confining appeals to questions of general public importance<\/li>\n<li>Therefore cannot deny meaningful judicial redress to individual claimants<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"judicial-self-restraint\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Self-Restraint_of_High_Courts\"><\/span>Judicial Self-Restraint of High Courts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>They pressed that High Courts routinely exercise institutional self-restraint and will not convert Article 226 petitions into second appeals; hence the Court should not foreclose the High Courts\u2019 corrective jurisdiction on the speculative ground of multiplicity or re-appreciation of evidence.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"precedent-support\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Support_from_Precedent\"><\/span>Support from Precedent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The respondents emphasised precedent in Rojer Mathew<sup>[24]<\/sup> which treated Article 227(4) as limited to supervision and reaffirmed the survivability of Article 226 against tribunal regimes.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"core-legal-thrust\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Legal_Thrust_Summarised\"><\/span>Core Legal Thrust Summarised<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In sum, their core legal thrust was that tribunalisation must be read in a manner that preserves constitutional remedies i.e., the AFT supplies the first independent judicial scrutiny but cannot be permitted to operate as an absolute bar to High Court judicial review of jurisdictional or fundamental-rights defects, particularly where the statutory appellate route to the Supreme Court is confined to questions of general public importance and thus offers no pragmatic remedy to many service litigants.<sup>[25]<\/sup><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"the-judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_The_Judgement\"><\/span>6. The Judgement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In Union of India v. Parashotam Dass the Supreme Court, comprising a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, B.V. Nagarathna, and Abhay S. Oka, delivered a unanimous judgment affirming that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be barred or ousted in matters arising from decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"judicial-review-basic-structure\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Review_as_Part_of_Basic_Structure\"><\/span>Judicial Review as Part of Basic Structure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court held that judicial review under Article 226 is an integral part of the Constitution\u2019s basic structure, as laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala<sup>[26]<\/sup> and further elaborated in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India<sup>[27]<\/sup>, and no statutory framework, including the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, can curtail this jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"article-2274-scope\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Clarification_on_Article_2274\"><\/span>Clarification on Article 227(4)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court emphasized that Article 227(4)<sup>[28]<\/sup>, which restricts the High Courts&#8217; supervisory jurisdiction over military tribunals, does not affect the independent jurisdiction conferred on High Courts under Article 226. The Court clarified that the restriction under Article 227(4) applies only to administrative supervision in context of the AFT and not to the High Courts\u2019 power to exercise judicial review.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"deficiency-in-appellate-architecture\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Deficiency_in_Appellate_Architecture\"><\/span>Deficiency in Appellate Architecture<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>It rejected the Union of India\u2019s argument that the Act\u2019s appellate mechanism under Sections 30 and 31\u2014which permits appeals to the Supreme Court only on \u201cpoints of law of general public importance\u201d\u2014provides an adequate remedy. The Court observed that this restrictive appellate framework leaves many litigants, particularly those with personal service grievances such as pension disputes, promotions, or disciplinary actions, without effective recourse to justice.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"overruling-prior-precedent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Overruling_Prior_Precedent\"><\/span>Overruling Prior Precedent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court overturned its earlier decision in Major General Shri Kant Sharma v. Union of India<sup>[29]<\/sup>, which had suggested a complete bar on High Court jurisdiction over AFT decisions. It held that this decision was inconsistent with the constitutional principles laid down in L. Chandra Kumar and subsequent cases, which affirm that tribunal decisions must remain subject to judicial review by the High Courts.<sup>[30]<\/sup><\/p>\n<h3 id=\"scope-of-judicial-review\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scope_of_Judicial_Review\"><\/span>Scope of Judicial Review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court reaffirmed that judicial review ensures accountability, prevents errors, and safeguards the fundamental rights of individuals, including armed forces personnel, who might otherwise be left without a remedy. Addressing the Union of India\u2019s concerns about military discipline and the operational efficiency of the armed forces, the Court noted that High Courts exercise judicial review with great restraint in military matters, fully aware of the special considerations involved.<\/p>\n<p>It emphasized that judicial review does not involve reappreciation of evidence or second appeals but is limited to examining jurisdictional errors, violations of fundamental rights, and legal questions.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"statutory-preservation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Preservation_of_HC_Jurisdiction\"><\/span>Statutory Preservation of HC Jurisdiction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court also observed that the Act itself, through Section 14(1),<sup>[31]<\/sup> explicitly preserves the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"access-to-remedy\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Protection_of_Effective_Remedy\"><\/span>Protection of Effective Remedy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>This indicates that Parliament did not intend to create a completely self-contained mechanism that excludes judicial review. The Court concluded that denying High Court jurisdiction would leave many service members remediless, particularly in cases where their grievances do not raise questions of public importance required for appeal under Section 31<sup>[32]<\/sup>.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"final-holding\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Holding\"><\/span>Final Holding<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that High Courts retain the power to exercise judicial review under Article 226 over decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and this jurisdiction cannot be curtailed or ousted.<sup>[33]<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>It remanded several matters back to the respective High Courts for adjudication on merits, emphasizing that the principles of judicial review remain a cornerstone of the constitutional framework, ensuring fairness, accountability, and justice for all, including members of the armed forces. This decision reaffirmed the essential role of judicial review in maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding constitutional rights.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Analysis\"><\/span>Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judgment in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass represents a significant reaffirmation of the primacy of judicial review under Article 226, strengthening the constitutional guarantee of remedies for service personnel. Legally, its most important contribution is the clarification that Article 227(4) only excludes administrative superintendence over Armed Forces Tribunals, but does not abrogate the writ jurisdiction of High Courts. This precision resolves longstanding ambiguities caused by earlier rulings such as Major General Shri Kant Sharma,[34] which had cast doubt on the survivability of writ remedies, and harmonises the AFT regime with the larger constitutional scheme laid down in L. Chandra Kumar.[35]<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"positive-features\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Positive_Features_of_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Positive Features of the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Reaffirms that writ remedies survive despite Article 227(4)<\/li>\n<li>Ensures High Courts can intervene in cases of:\n<ul>\n<li>Jurisdictional error<\/li>\n<li>Violation of fundamental rights<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Prevents excessive judicial intrusion into specialized tribunals while protecting fairness<\/li>\n<li>Recognizes access-to-justice concerns for service members<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Further, the judgment\u2019s insistence that service members should not be left remediless when their disputes involve personal rather than \u201cgeneral public importance\u201d[36] issues underscores the Court\u2019s sensitivity to access-to-justice concerns.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"drawbacks\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Drawbacks_from_a_Military_Justice_Perspective\"><\/span>Drawbacks from a Military Justice Perspective<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The armed forces operate on principles of discipline, hierarchy, and operational readiness, which often demand speed and finality in adjudication of disputes. Key concerns include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Possibility of personnel bypassing AFT and directly approaching High Courts<\/li>\n<li>Undermines rationale behind establishing a specialised tribunal in 2007<\/li>\n<li>No distinct limits for military litigation \u2014 general doctrine of L. Chandra Kumar simply transplanted<\/li>\n<li>Potential disruption in:\n<ul>\n<li>Promotions<\/li>\n<li>Postings<\/li>\n<li>Pensionary disputes<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Risk of inconsistent rulings across different High Courts<\/li>\n<li>Protracted litigation affecting efficiency and morale within the forces<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Another concern is that greater judicial oversight could lead to fragmented standards across states, with different High Courts granting different remedies, creating confusion in the centralised military structure. The judgment leaves the armed forces vulnerable to protracted litigation, diluting the efficiency and cohesion that are indispensable to their functioning.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The decision in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass is a landmark reaffirmation of the constitutional principle that judicial review under Article 226 cannot be ousted, even in the face of a specialised statutory regime like the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The Court\u2019s ruling settles the confusion generated by Major General Shri Kant Sharma and restores doctrinal clarity by holding that while Article 227(4) limits supervisory powers, it does not extinguish the writ jurisdiction of High Courts. In this sense, the judgment upholds the central ruling of L. Chandra Kumar and fortifies the basic structure of the Constitution, ensuring that service personnel remain entitled to constitutional remedies.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"judicial-restraint\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Restraint_and_Balance\"><\/span>Judicial Restraint and Balance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>High Courts should avoid acting as appellate forums<\/li>\n<li>Intervention limited to:\n<ul>\n<li>Jurisdictional error<\/li>\n<li>Violation of fundamental rights<\/li>\n<li>Manifest illegality<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Maintains AFT as primary specialized forum<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Nonetheless, the judgment also highlights the persisting structural limitations of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. By not addressing the restrictive scope of Section 31, which allows appeals to the Supreme Court only on questions of general public importance, the Court has left unresolved the systemic issue that many personal service grievances remain without a clear appellate path.<\/p>\n<p>As a result, the burden of providing relief continues to fall on the High Courts, which could strain their dockets and undermine the efficiency objectives of tribunals. The absence of a legislative rethink on this appellate design means that judicial intervention alone cannot completely resolve the tensions between efficiency and constitutionalism.<\/p>\n<p>Parashotam Dass strengthens the constitutional promise of judicial review, affirms the High Courts\u2019 vital role in safeguarding individual rights, and reasserts the boundaries within which tribunals must operate. It simultaneously preserves the legitimacy of the AFT as a specialised forum while ensuring that no service member is left remediless. Yet, the decision also points to the urgent need for legislative reform of the AFT\u2019s appellate structure to harmonise efficiency with fairness. The case thus stands as both a vindication of constitutional fundamentals and a reminder of the unfinished project of building a just and workable system of military justice in India.<\/p>\n<p><b>References:<\/b><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi Etc v Union Of India (1982) 3 SCC 140<\/li>\n<li>Law Commission Of India, Amendment Of Army, Navy And Air Force Acts (Law Comm No 15, 1999)<\/li>\n<li>S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124<\/li>\n<li>L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261<\/li>\n<li>Constitution of India 1950, art 227(4)<\/li>\n<li>S.N. Mukherjee v Union Of India (1990) 4 SCC 594<\/li>\n<li>Major General Shri Kant Sharma v Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 773<\/li>\n<li>Union of India v R. Gandhi (2010) Civil Appeal No. 3067 of 2004<\/li>\n<li>Union Of India v Parashotam Dass (2023) SCC OnLine SC 31<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<li>Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, s 31<\/li>\n<li>Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, s 30<\/li>\n<li>Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, s 31<\/li>\n<li>Constitution of India 1950, art 227(4)<\/li>\n<li>Major General Shri Kant Sharma v Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 773<\/li>\n<li>Union Of India v Parashotam Dass (2023) SCC OnLine SC 31<\/li>\n<li>Constitution of India 1950, art 226<\/li>\n<li>Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, s 3(o)<\/li>\n<li>\u2018High Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Supreme Court overrules its 2015 judgement\u2019 (SCC OnLine, 28 March 2023) https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/28\/high-courts-have-jurisdiction-to-adjudicate-upon-orders-passed-by-armed-forces-tribunal-supreme-court-overrules-its-judgement-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/ accessed 01 September 2025<\/li>\n<li>L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261<\/li>\n<li>S.N. Mukherjee v Union Of India (1990) 4 SCC 594<\/li>\n<li>Major General Shri Kant Sharma v Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 773<\/li>\n<li>Ashok Kini, &#8216;Leave To Appeal Against AFT Orders Only When There Is A Point Of Law Of General Importance: SC&#8217; (Live Law, 09 January 2019) https:\/\/www.livelaw.in\/news-updates\/no-appeal-to-sc-from-aft-if-there-is-no-point-of-law-of-general-importance-141980?fromIpLogin=46554.917766042934 accessed 02 September 2025<\/li>\n<li>Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors (2019) 15 SCALE 615<\/li>\n<li>Union Of India v Parashotam Dass (2023) SCC OnLine SC 31<\/li>\n<li>Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225<\/li>\n<li>L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261<\/li>\n<li>Constitution of India 1950, art 227(4)<\/li>\n<li>Major General Shri Kant Sharma v Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 773<\/li>\n<li>Union Of India v Parashotam Dass (2023) SCC OnLine SC 31<\/li>\n<li>Armed Forces Tribunal Act 20007, s 14(1)<\/li>\n<li>Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, s 31<\/li>\n<li>Union Of India v Parashotam Dass (2023) SCC OnLine SC 31<\/li>\n<li>Kini (n 23)<\/li>\n<li>L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261<\/li>\n<li>Shagun Suryam, &#8216;Supreme Court overrules 2015 judgment which held High Courts cannot entertain Article 226 petitions against Armed Forces Tribunal orders&#8217; (Bar and Bench, 22 March 2023) https:\/\/www.barandbench.com\/news\/litigation\/supreme-court-overrules-2015-judgment-which-held-high-courts-cannot-entertain-article-226-petitions-armed-forces-tribunal-orders accessed 03 September 2025<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>Award-Winning Article Written By: Mr.Aryan Gupta<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/images\/ae-1.png\" alt=\"Certificate of Excellence awarded by Legal Service India\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Authentication No: NV533013981905-26-1125<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass unequivocally reaffirmed that judicial review under Article 226 forms part of the Constitution\u2019s basic structure and cannot be excluded by the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. By clarifying that Article 227(4) restricts only administrative superintendence, the Court restored doctrinal clarity, preserved constitutional remedies, and recalibrated the balance between tribunal autonomy and judicial oversight.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":752,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-11839","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-administrative"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/752"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}