AFT doesn't have contempt of court power to punish for non-compliance of its final orders: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) does not possess the power to punish for civil contempt in cases of non-compliance with its final orders [Union of India v Lt Col Mukul Dev]. 

A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla held that Section 19 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act (AFT Act) empowers the tribunal to punish a person for contempt of court, but the provision is narrowly framed. 

It penalises conduct such as using insulting or threatening language or causing interruption or disturbance in tribunal proceedings. But mere disobedience of a final order does not amount to “interruption or disturbance” once proceedings have concluded, the Court underscored. 

“Disobedience of a final order passed by the AFT would not, however, attract Section 19, as, with the passing of the final order, the proceedings before the AFT come to an end, and any future disobedience of the said order cannot, therefore, result in interruption or disturbance of the proceedings before the AFT,” the Court said. 

However, the Bench observed that if any disobedience of an interim order passed by the AFT interferes with or disturbs further proceedings before it, the AFT can proceed against the person responsible for such disobedience by way of a contempt action under Section 19.

It added that non-compliance with final AFT decisions can be addressed through the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 

The Bench delivered the findings while dealing with a plea filed by the Central government challenging the decision of a Full Bench of the AFT which held that repeated non-compliance with its orders — 5,612 of which were allegedly pending implementation — amounted to contempt under Section 19 of the AFT Act. 

The tribunal reasoned that wilful disobedience disrupted its functioning and fell within its statutory power to punish for contempt. It also relied on Rule 25 of the AFT (Procedure) Rules, 2008, which recognises the tribunal’s inherent powers to give effect to its orders.

The government challenged that view, arguing that the AFT Act does not confer civil contempt powers on the AFT and that such authority cannot be assumed by implication, particularly after the parliament withdrew a 2012 amendment bill that had expressly proposed granting the tribunal High Court-like contempt jurisdiction.

While parting with the case, the Court urged the government to challenge adverse rulings legally rather than ignore them. It stressed that unimplemented orders without a stay are unacceptable and that armed forces personnel should not remain entangled in prolonged litigation.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee and advocates Aakanksha Kaul, Aditya Kashyap, Varun Pratap Singh and Ashima Chopra appeared for the Union of India. 

Advocates Rajiv Manglik, AK Trivedi, Ajit Kakkar and Sonal Singh appeared for the respondent, Lt Col Mukul Dev. 

[Read Judgement]