UNION OF INDIA v. Major Anish Muralidhar & Ors.

In substance, therefore, what the first question before the Larger Bench, as framed above, essentially set up for adjudication, was whether willful disobedience with an order passed by the AFT could be regarded as causing interruption or disturbance in its proceedings. If it could, the person so guilty of disobeying the AFT’s order would Signature Not Verified have to suffer the wrath of Section 19(1). Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 W.P.(C) 12769/2024

5.8 Issue 2, as framed by the Full Bench, read as under: “To include any other question, as may be considered relevant by the Larger Bench to the issue in question inclusive of the scope and ambit of Section 29 of the AFT Act, 2007 for effecting compliance/execution of the orders of this Tribunal” The Impugned Order The afore-noted two issues were answered by the AFT as under: Regarding Issue 1, the AFT has held that it has powers to B.

#7. punish for contempt of itself or of its orders for upholding its majesty and dignity and for it to be effectively functional. Following this observation, the AFT concludes its discussion with respect to Issue 1 thus: “260. The contention thus raised on behalf of the applicants of CA 4/2014, CA 7/2014, CA 4/2022 and observations in CA 1/2023 and CA 2/2023 and the submissions by the Ld. Amicus Curiae that repeated defiance despite final adjudication of rights of the Armed Forces personnel, and the repeated non-compliance of the said orders by the respondents, where there is no stay of the operation of the orders of which implementation has been sought, by the applicant thereof, the continuous recalcitrant attitude and non- compliance of the directions of this Tribunal has essentially to fall within the ambit of contempt in terms of Section 19 of the AFT Act 2007, has to be accepted. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. However, we consider it essential to observe that there can be no unfettered use of the powers of contempt in terms of Section 19 of the AFT Act 2007, which as rightly contended by the learned amicus curiae Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate is an extraordinary action to be taken by the Tribunal. The invocation of the said powers of ’contempt’ in terms of Section 19 of the AFT Act 2007 thus have to be exercised with caution and care, in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 W.P.(C) 12769/2024 specific facts and circumstances of each case. REFERENCE ANSWERED QUA ISSUE NO. 2 BEFORE THIS BENCH Issue No. 2 reads to the effect:- “To include any other question, as may be considered relevant by the Larger Bench to the issue in question inclusive of the scope and ambit of Section 29 of the AFT Act, 2007 for effecting compliance/execution of the orders of this Tribunal.””

#8. With respect to Issue 2, unfortunately, the impugned order does not provide any categorical opinion except for referring to Rule 25 of the 2008 Rules.

#9. In arriving at its decision, the AFT proceeded on the following reasoning: (i) The principle ut res magis valeat quam pereat requires a court, when faced with a choice between two interpretations of a statute, one of which is narrower and would fail to achieve the purpose of the legislation, and the other which would promote the purpose of the legislation but may be bold in its nature, to prefer the bold interpretation. (ii) Despite the sheer magnitude of number of orders of the AFT which had not been complied with, the departmental authorities were seeking to contend that the AFT could not take any action against them under Section 19 of the AFT Act. In other words, it was sought to be contended that Section 19 did not address a situation of non-compliance with the orders passed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 W.P.(C) 12769/2024 by the AFT. (iii) Article 338 of the Constitution of India did empower the Parliament to modify the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution in its application to members of the Armed Forces, but such abridging could only be to the extent it was provided by Parliament. Fundamental rights of Armed Forces personnel could not be abridged beyond the extent provided by Parliament in terms of Article 33 of the Constitution. Thus, the ordinary right of every citizen to invoke the inherent power of contempt vested in a body which was charged with the duties to adjudicate on disputes was sacrosanct and remained preserved. (iv) The right to ensure that orders passed by the AFT were enforceable by the AFT also flowed from the principle ubi jus ibi remedium. (v) Section 14(1)9 of the AFT Act provided that the AFT would exercise, on and from the appointed day, all jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable immediately before that day by 8 33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc. – Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to,— persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the the members of the Armed Forces; or the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for (a) (b) (c) purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or (d) purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters. – Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from (1) the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters. 9 14. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 W.P.(C) 12769/2024 all courts except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in relation to service matters. Thus, by virtue of Article 21510 of the Constitution of India, the AFT would be deemed to have all powers of a court of record, which would include the power to punish for contempt of itself. (vi) Where the order made by a court – in the instant case, by the AFT – was disobeyed by contumacious defiance, and the person disobeying the order conducted himself or itself through its agents in a manner which amount to obstruction to, or interference with, the course of justice, it amounted to contempt of a mixed character, civil as well as criminal, but, in any case, amounted to commission of contempt within the meaning of Section 19 of the AFT Act. (vii) Section 41 of the AFT Act empowered the Central Government to make rules for carrying the provisions of the AFT Act by notification. The Armed Forces Tribunal (Practice) Rules 200911 were notified vide SRO 26(E) dated 17 September 2008. Rule 10(2)12 of the Practice Rules required contempt applications 10 215. High Courts to be courts of record. – Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 11 “the Practice Rules” hereinafter 12 10. Scrutiny of application or petition or other pleadings and papers. – The Scrutiny Branch of the Registry shall, on receipt of the application or appeal or (1) pleadings from the receiving branch, scrutinise the same as expeditiously as possible but not beyond two days from the date of receipt: Provided that if, for any reason, the scrutiny is not completed within the said period, the same shall be immediately reported to the Registrar, who shall take prompt steps to complete the scrutiny. (2) The report of the scrutiny of the application shall be in Form No. 2 and of Contempt Application either Civil or Criminal in Form No. 3 and the scrutiny report shall be annexed to the application or appeal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 W.P.(C) 12769/2024 to be scrutinized in Form No. 3, whether civil or criminal, and for the scrutiny report to be annexed to the application or appeal. Note 2 in the said Form specifically identified the parties to be impleaded in the case of civil contempt as well as criminal contempt. Thus, the Practice Rules envisaged power, with the AFT, to proceed for civil contempt. (viii) The rules framed under Section 41 of the AFT Act were required, in terms of Section 4313, to be placed before each House of Parliament, when in session, for a period of 30 days after they were made. The consequent Gazette Notification enforcing the rules had, therefore, the same force as an Act of Parliament. (ix) The AFT possessed all the trappings of a Court and exercised the powers vested in High Courts in respect of service matters relating to members of the Armed Forces, before they were transferred to the AFT on coming into effect of the AFT Act. This clearly indicated that the AFT had powers to punish for contempt of itself and its orders for upholding majesty and dignity of the institution and for it to be effectively functional. (x) That said, proceedings under Section 19 of the AFT Act were extraordinary proceedings, which could be taken only in extreme cases. Section 19 was not meant to be routinely invoked, 13 43. Laying of rules. – Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 W.P.(C) 12769/2024 where the circumstances did not so warrant. C. Rival Contentions

#10. We have heard Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Manglik, learned Counsel for the respondent, at length. I. Submissions of learned ASG

#11. The learned ASG submits that power to punish for civil contempt cannot be conferred by implication. The AFT Act does not confer any power on the AFT to punish for disobedience of orders passed by it, and that is how it must be. He submits that the Court cannot, by judicial fiat, confer, on the AFT, a power to punish for civil contempt, where the legislature has not thought it fit to do so.

#12. The learned ASG has emphasized the fact that the 2012 Bill, which in fact proposed to confer civil contempt powers on the AFT, was withdrawn. The legislative intent, therefore, he submits, is clear, which is that the AFT should not be clothed with the power to punish for contempt in the face of disobedience of the orders passed by it.

#13. The learned ASG further submitted that depriving the AFT of the power to punish for civil contempt of itself would not render its orders unenforceable, as the High Court would, under Section 1014 of Signature Not Verified 14 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. – Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 W.P.(C) 12769/2024 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, be able to punish any person who contumaciously disobeys an order passed by any judicial or quasi- judicial authority over which it exercises superintending powers, which would include the AFT.

#14. Insofar as Rule 25 of the 2008 Rules is concerned, the learned ASG submits that it confers, on the AFT, the power to execute its orders, and not to punish for civil contempt. In any event, submits the learned ASG, a power to punish for contempt cannot be conferred by a Rule. He relies for the purpose, on para 22 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini v. Delhi High Court15. The learned ASG further cites para 23 of T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt of A.P.16

#15. The learned ASG particularly draws attention to the following paragraphs of the impugned order which, he submits, are ex facie unsustainable in law: “251. That the rules framed under Section 41 of the AFT Act 2007 in terms of Section 43 of the said enactment are mandatorily required to be placed before each House of Parliament, where it is in session for a period of 30 days after they are made, and thus, the consequential enforcement of the gazetted notification has to be held to be an act of Parliament, and thus, it cannot be contended as sought to be contended by the respondents that the Rules that have been framed as the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2008 of which Rule 25 thereof brings forth the non-obstante clause of ensuring unaffected exercise of inherent powers by this Tribunal to make such orders or to give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its the Rules vide in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself: