Armed Forces Tribunal

What are Armed Forces Tribunals

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 to deal specifically with disputes involving members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. It started functioning in 2009, mainly to provide a faster and more specialized alternative to High Courts for service-related grievances.

The Tribunal hears cases on matters such as pay, promotion, pension, posting, and other conditions of service, and it also hears appeals against court-martial decisions. Each bench usually includes a judicial member, often a retired High Court judge, along with an administrative member who has served in a senior position in the armed forces.

Armed Forces Tribunals Officially defined

Defined in Legislation(s)

Armed forces Tribunal Act

The Tribunal is defined simply as the “Armed Forces Tribunal established under section 4” of the Act. Section 4 provides for its establishment by the Central Government and clarifies that the AFT is a statutory body constituted to exercise jurisdiction, powers, and authority in relation to service matters and court-martial appeals concerning members of the armed forces. The Act treats the Tribunal primarily as a replacement forum for High Courts in specified military matters, rather than as a conventional court, and consistently refers to it as a specialized adjudicatory body.

Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008

In the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, the Tribunal is again defined in a minimal and functional manner as the “Tribunal constituted under the Act.” The Rules do not expand on the nature or character of the AFT but assume its existence as established under the 2007 Act. Their focus is procedural: how applications are filed before the Tribunal, how benches function, how notices are issued, and how hearings are conducted. In this sense, the Rules reinforce the idea of the AFT as a working forum for adjudication, rather than redefining it substantively.

Term as defined in Official Documents

Law Commission report 169

The formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal can be traced directly to the 169th Law Commission Report, which highlighted the lack of a specialized and effective forum for resolving service disputes and court-martial appeals involving members of the armed forces. The Report recommended the creation of a permanent Armed Forces Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction in these matters, envisaging it as an independent statutory body with authority comparable to that exercised by High Courts in service and disciplinary cases. It defined the proposed tribunal through its function and structure, stressing that it should combine judicial independence with an understanding of military discipline by including both judicial members and senior retired officers. These recommendations were later adopted by Parliament and translated into law through the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Term as defined in Case Law

Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh case

In Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India (1982), while upholding the constitutionality of courts-martial under the Army Act and recognizing Parliament’s power under Article 33 to tailor fundamental rights for the armed forces, the Supreme Court made a significant institutional observation. The Court pointed out that, unlike ordinary criminal courts, there was no statutory appellate forum against court-martial findings and sentences, leaving affected personnel with only limited and indirect remedies. Although the Court itself did not propose a specific tribunal, it clearly acknowledged this as a serious gap in the military justice framework and suggested that the matter required legislative attention. These observations were later relied upon by the 169th Law Commission Report, which treated the judgment as judicial recognition of the need for an independent appellate and service forum, and used it as one of the foundations for the creation of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Legislative framework

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was established under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which provides the statutory foundation for its constitution, jurisdiction, composition, and functioning. Section 4 of the Act authorizes the Central Government to establish, by notification, a Tribunal known as the Armed Forces Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers, and authority conferred by or under the Act. The Tribunal was created to provide a specialized and expeditious forum for adjudication of service matters and appeals arising out of court-martial proceedings involving members of the armed forces, thereby reducing the burden on constitutional courts and addressing concerns of delay in military justice.

To give operational effect to the Act, several procedural and practice-related rules were framed under the rule-making power contained in Section 41. The Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 lay down the manner in which applications and appeals are to be filed, heard, and decided by the Tribunal. These rules structure the conduct of proceedings before the AFT and seek to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice, in a role broadly comparable to that played by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in criminal trials. This framework was supplemented by the Armed Forces Tribunal (Practice) Rules, 2009, which regulate day-to-day practice before the Tribunal, including filing, scrutiny of pleadings, and conduct of hearings.

In addition to procedural rules, the legislative framework includes detailed recruitment rules governing posts in the Tribunal’s registry and administrative establishment. Under Sections 13 and 41(2)(e) of the Act, the Central Government has notified various recruitment rules, including the Armed Forces Tribunal (Group C Posts) Recruitment Rules, initially notified on 10 June 2013; the Armed Forces Tribunal (Group A and Group B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2018, notified on 23 April 2018; and the Armed Forces Tribunal (Accounts Cadre Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2019, notified on 12 June 2019. These rules regulate recruitment to posts such as Financial Advisor, Chief Accounts Officer, Accounts Officers, and other supporting staff essential for the Tribunal’s functioning.

The Act itself comprehensively regulates the appointment, qualifications, tenure, and service conditions of the Chairperson and Members of the Tribunal under Sections 5 to 11. Section 5 provides that each Bench shall consist of a Chairperson, a Judicial Member, and an Administrative Member, with the mandatory requirement that every Bench include at least one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member.

Appointments are governed by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The Chairperson must be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, while Judicial Members must be Judges of a High Court. Administrative Members must have held the rank of Major General or its equivalent in the Navy or Air Force for at least three years and must have served as Judge Advocate General for not less than one year. Appointments are made by the President of India on the recommendations of a selection committee, and orders relating to empanelment and appointment are issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs.

Types of Armed Forces Tribunals

The Principal Bench of the Tribunal is located in New Delhi, and it serves as the central seat where the Chairperson and members oversee the tribunal’s functioning and hear cases that fall within its nationwide scope. The Act provides that the Tribunal is to consist of a Chairperson and such number of Judicial and Administrative Members as the Government may deem fit, and that its jurisdiction may be exercised through Benches.

To ensure justice is accessible across the country, the Tribunal also operates through regional benches in various cities such as Chandigarh, Lucknow, Kolkata, Guwahati, Chennai, Kochi, Mumbai, Jabalpur, Srinagar, and Jaipur. Some benches, like those in Chandigarh and Lucknow, have multiple divisions to handle higher caseloads, while others have a single bench.

Each bench generally includes one Judicial Member, often a retired High Court judge and one Administrative Member, typically a retired senior armed forces officer or Judge Advocate General, which allows both legal expertise and military experience to inform decisions.

Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal

An Overview of the Cause Lists

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) functions through its Principal Bench at New Delhi and a network of regional benches located across the country, including Chandigarh, Lucknow, Kolkata, Guwahati, Chennai, Kochi, Mumbai, Jabalpur, Jaipur, Srinagar and others. Each bench publishes daily or supplementary cause lists, usually in PDF format, through its official website. While the Principal Bench website also hosts cause lists for some regional benches, many benches maintain separate portals. These cause lists set out the matters listed for hearing on a particular day and provide basic procedural and logistical information necessary for parties and counsel.

Although the presentation of cause lists vary marginally from bench to bench, they broadly follow a uniform, tabular structure focused on essential case details. Compared to cause lists issued by some other tribunals, AFT cause lists are deliberately concise. They prioritise current scheduling information and generally avoid including historical data such as the date of the last hearing or detailed procedural history.

Across benches, AFT cause lists usually begin with a header indicating the name and location of the bench, the date and time of hearing, the mode of hearing (physical or video conferencing), and the composition of the Bench, including both judicial and administrative members. This is followed by a sequential listing of cases, typically identifying the case number, names of the petitioner and respondent (most often the Union of India and others), and the advocates appearing on either side. Some lists also specify the service branch to which the matter relates, such as the Army, Navy or Air Force. Additional notes at the end of the list may provide video-conferencing links, cautionary disclaimers regarding typographical errors, or contact details for administrative queries.

The treatment of case stage or purpose varies noticeably across benches. In many instances, the purpose of listing is not expressly stated for each case but is instead inferred from the nature of the application, such as an Original Application or a Miscellaneous Application, or from a general description at the top of the list. Unlike several civilian tribunals, AFT cause lists rarely include a dedicated column explaining the specific purpose of the hearing or recording the date of the previous listing.

The cause lists issued by the Principal Bench in New Delhi, as well as those of regional benches whose lists are hosted on the same platform tend to follow a straightforward format. After identifying the bench, date and members, cases are listed sequentially without further segmentation by stage. The tables typically record the case number, parties, counsels and service branch. In Srinagar, lists frequently emphasise that hearings are conducted through video conferencing and may be accompanied by supplementary lists. Mumbai and Chennai largely mirror this structure, sometimes adding brief notes on the mode of hearing.

Cause List AFT Chennai

At Chandigarh, cause lists are often organised bench-wise, with separate lists for Bench No. 1 and Bench No. 2. The headers clearly indicate the bench number, date and composition of the Tribunal. While cases are again listed sequentially, the list may indicate a uniform stage for all matters, such as “for hearing” or “for directions.” Supplementary lists are occasionally issued for urgent matters, including bail applications. Registrar court lists are also common and usually focus on compliance-related or freshly filed cases. As with other benches, the date of the last hearing is not recorded.

Cause List, AFT Chandigarh

The Lucknow Bench adopts a slightly different approach by clearly stating the case stage at the top of the list, often applying the same stage such as “for orders” to all matters listed for that day. Separate PDFs are issued for different courts within the bench, and the header prominently mentions the quorum. While this enhances clarity regarding the nature of proceedings scheduled for the day, individual case-wise purpose or prior hearing details are still not provided.

Cause lists from the Jaipur Bench are notable for their relatively granular structure. In addition to court-wise lists, separate registrar lists are published, particularly for admissions and procedural matters. The tables often break down case information into elements such as kind of case, number, year, applicant, respondent and advocate. In some instances, time slots for hearings are also mentioned. Even here, however, the focus remains on the immediate listing rather than procedural history.

Cause List of AFT Jaipur

The Guwahati Bench stands out for its segmented presentation. Its cause lists are frequently divided into distinct parts based on stage, such as matters listed for admission, orders or final hearing. Each part contains a separate table of cases, making the purpose of listing more explicit than in many other AFT benches. Despite this clearer categorisation, the lists still refrain from recording dates of earlier hearings or detailed remarks.

e-Courts in the Armed Forces Tribunals

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has undergone significant technological upgrades in recent years to improve access to justice for military personnel, particularly through the adoption of video conferencing and e-filing systems. In August 2020, AFT Chairperson Justice Rajendra Menon officially launched virtual hearings across all ten regional benches, allowing cases to proceed remotely amid challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic and the geographical spread of armed forces members. This move addressed security concerns and logistical issues, enabling hybrid proceedings where physical hearings at the Principal Bench resumed in June 2020, while regional benches shifted to video links integrated directly into daily cause lists often as embedded URLs or under separate "virtual cause list" headings, without a dedicated standalone portal on the official website. By 2025, Justice Menon highlighted in an interview that these hybrid virtual setups have ensured continuity even when bench members are unavailable, further extending to new circuit benches in locations like Gangtok, where video conferencing facilitates operations as needed.

Complementing this, the AFT introduced e-filing to streamline case submissions, with an online portal available for users to register, log in, and upload documents electronically, reducing the need for physical visits. While specific launch details for e-filing aren't widely documented, the tribunal marked a broader digital milestone in August 2025 with the beta release of its Comprehensive Court Management System (CCMS), developed by Maxtra Technologies, which enhances e-filing and overall case tracking during its Raising Day celebrations attended by Justice Menon and other dignitaries. These initiatives integrate virtual elements into cause lists and supporting tools like online case status checks across benches.

International Experience

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, military justice is organised under the Service Justice System, which is administered by the Ministry of Defence. Instead of a standalone armed forces tribunal, the UK relies on permanent Courts Martial that have worldwide jurisdiction over members of the armed forces. These courts are administered by the Military Court Service, an official body that provides judges, panels, and procedural support. Importantly, the judge advocate who presides over a court-martial is a civilian judge, and appeals from courts-martial lie to the Court Martial Appeal Court, which is part of the ordinary civilian appellate structure.

United States of America

In the United States, the military justice system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a federal statute that applies across all branches of the armed forces. Courts-martial function as trial courts for service offences, while appellate review is carried out by service-specific Courts of Criminal Appeals. Above them sits the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), a civilian federal court whose judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Although this system provides strong appellate safeguards, its jurisdiction is largely limited to criminal convictions and disciplinary matters, with service-related grievances being addressed through separate administrative boards.

Australia

In Australia, military justice is governed by the Defence Force Discipline Act, 1982, under which courts-martial and Defence Force magistrates deal with serious disciplinary offences. Over time, concerns about fairness and independence led to the creation of additional oversight institutions, most notably the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, who conducts independent reviews of military justice processes. Service-related complaints and administrative disputes may also be examined through civilian bodies such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Challenges in the system

Significant Case Backlog

As of September 2025, approximately 28,000 cases remain pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal across its various benches, marking a nearly 50% increase from the 18,829 cases reported in February 2021. This backlog encompasses disputes related to pensions, promotions, disability claims, and court-martial appeals, with the Principal Bench in Delhi accounting for nearly half of the total pendency.

Chronic Shortage of Members

The tribunal operates with persistent vacancies in both judicial and administrative member positions, leading to many benches functioning at reduced capacity or remaining non-operational. Over 50% of selected judicial members have declined appointments due to unattractive service conditions, further aggravating the manpower crisis and contributing directly to delays in case disposal.

Issues with Appointments and Rules

Delays in filling posts stem from repeated legal challenges to appointment rules and unappealing terms of service post the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. Recent vacancy circulars and Supreme Court interventions in early 2025 highlight ongoing efforts to expedite selections, yet the process remains hampered.

Concerns Over Independence and Oversight

The tribunal's administrative control by the Ministry of Defence, which is frequently a respondent in cases, raises potential conflicts of interest. This structure has faced judicial scrutiny, with calls for shifting oversight to the Ministry of Law and Justice to enhance perceived impartiality.

Infrastructure and Accessibility Constraints

Despite proposals for additional circuit benches in remote areas like Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, as suggested by the Supreme Court in January 2025, limited benches and facilities continue to burden existing ones, particularly Chandigarh, and hinder timely access to justice for personnel in dispersed locations.