Availability of alternate remedy before Armed Forces Tribunal does not oust High Court's jurisdiction, Supreme Court

In a pertinent judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the availability of an alternate remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) does not take away the right of a High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226..The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that merely because a High Court may not exercise its jurisdiction does not make it a ground to hold that it does not have jurisdiction altogether..It would be pertinent to add that the principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law.Supreme Court.It is a settled principle for Writ Courts to not exercise their jurisdiction in cases where an alternate remedy is available, the Supreme Court pointed out. It, however, went on to hold that this restraint cannot be construed to mean that the High lacks jurisdiction.This ruling of the Court came in an appeal filed against the decision of the Allahabad High Court. The main question before the Apex Court was in whether in cases concerning Armed Forces personnel, an appeal against an order of a Single Judge pending before a High Court is be required to be transferred to an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act of 2007.The Full Court of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the appeals pending prior to the constitution of the AFT under the AFT Act would not be required to be transferred to the Tribunal.While dealing with this question, the Apex Court, however, noted that since any appeal against the decision of the AFT lies before the Supreme Court, the High Court may not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction. The remedy of AFT is an "efficacious alternate remedy" available. Having said this, the Court goes on to elucidate that whether the High Court must exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, there may arise occasions when approaching the Supreme Court for personnel such as Non Commissioned Officers of Junior Commissioned Officers may be difficult. The High Court may also be justified in exercising its Writ jurisdiction in cases where there exist some "glaring illegality committed by the AFT", the judgment adds. It goes to thus, hold.There cannot be a blanket ban on the exercise of such jurisdiction because that would effectively mean that the writ court is denuded of its jurisdiction to entertain such writ petitions.Supreme Court In Balkrishna Ram vs Union of India.The Court also rejected the argument for transferring intra Court appeals to the Tribunal saying that the same would amount to making the High Court subordinate to the AFT, which would not have been the intention of the Legislature.The High Court is a Constitutional Court and its orders and rulings can be challenged only before the Supreme Court, the judgment underlines. Appeals against orders of a High Court Judge cannot be heard by a Tribunal which comprises a retired Judge and an Armed Forces Personnel, the top Court added.Thus, the Court stressed that the availability of an alternate remedy would not mean that High Court's jurisdiction is ousted.[Read the Judgment]