Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 10) observed that the Armed Forces Tribunal (“AFT”) under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (“Act”) is empowered to substitute the findings of the Court Martial if its findings were excessive, illegal or unjust.

“Thus, under Section 15(6) (a) & (b) of the 2007 Act, the Tribunal is empowered to substitute the finding of Court Martial which includes the disciplinary proceedings under the Act and also to interfere with the sentence if the same is found to be excessive, illegal or unjust and to mitigate the punishment awarded.”, the court held.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe upheld the AFT's decision to set aside the court-martial's order of dismissal and replace it with compulsory retirement, granting the appellant pensionary benefits.

The case stemmed from a 2008 incident in which Appellant, then Commandant of a vehicle depot, was accused of corruption, illegal possession of ammunition, and unexplained cash holdings. A General Court Martial (GCM) found him guilty of corruption and possession of ammunition, sentencing him to dismissal from service in 2009.

In 2012, the AFT reviewed the case and acquitted him of corruption, ruling that the evidence of bribery was insufficient. It also set aside his conviction under the Arms Act but invoked its statutory powers to convict him instead under Section 63 of the Army Act, holding that his conduct amounted to “an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline.” The Tribunal reduced his punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, allowing him to retain pensionary benefits.

Challenging the AFT's substitution of the conviction, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe drawing analogy from Section 222 of CrPC, noted that “Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act is in pari materia with Section 162 of the 1950 Act and is akin to Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which permits conviction for a lesser or cognate offence on the same set of facts.”

Moreover, the Court found that the AFT's decision to substitute the Martial Court's view was proportionate, not warranting an interference.

“The Tribunal has exercised its discretion under Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual. The Tribunal has acted strictly within the statutory framework. The aforesaid exercise of discretion, therefore, does not call for any interference in this appeal. The Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the petition for review filed by the appellant.”, the court said.

“The Tribunal under Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act, which contains a non-obstante clause, has power to substitute the finding of Court Martial, a finding of guilty of any other offence for which offender could have been lawfully found guilty by Court Martial and may pass a sentence afresh. In the instant case, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 15(6) of 2007 Act, on the established fact of recovery of ammunition from the possession of the appellant, has taken a lenient view in favour of the appellant and has modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion under Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual. The Tribunal has acted strictly within the statutory framework. The aforesaid exercise of discretion, therefore, does not call for any interference in this appeal. The Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the petition for review filed by the appellant.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: S.K. JAIN Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 994

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Roshan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumer, Adv. Ms. Darshana Deepak Das, Adv. Mr. Kamei Bestman Kabui, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma B, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.