Restoring Credibility to the Armed Forces Tribunal: Why AFT Reforms Cannot Wait

By Wing Commander (Retd.) Ajit Kakkar, Advocate — Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench) & Central Administrative Tribunal

Writing in the Sunday edition of The Times of India, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, has observed that restoring the credibility of tribunals is one of the greatest challenges before the Indian judicial system. Few institutions illustrate that challenge and its human cost better than the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 to deliver specialised, expeditious justice to serving personnel, veterans and their families.

As a practitioner who appears before the AFT every working day, I can say with responsibility: the Chief Justice’s concern is not academic. It describes the daily experience of the soldier, the disabled veteran and the widow who wait often for years for relief that the law promises them. This article examines why the AFT needs immediate attention, and what a credible reform agenda would look like.

Why the Armed Forces Tribunal Matters

The Armed Forces are governed by a unique service jurisprudence. Their members willingly surrender several constitutional freedoms in the interest of discipline and national security. In return, they are entitled to expect that disputes relating to service, pension, promotion and disciplinary matters will be adjudicated swiftly and fairly by a specialised forum. That is the constitutional bargain on which the AFT was founded.

Unfortunately, delays and systemic deficiencies have steadily diluted the Tribunal’s effectiveness. The credibility of any judicial institution rests upon four pillars availability of judges, administrative efficiency, timely compliance with judicial orders and adequate infrastructure. The AFT presently struggles on each of these fronts. Consider them one by one.

1. Vacancies of Judicial Members: Benches Without Judges

The most serious challenge is the prolonged vacancy of Judicial Members. Several AFT Benches have remained non-functional or only partially functional because Judicial Members have either not been appointed in time or, despite appointment, have not joined promptly. The consequences fall entirely on the litigant:

• Cases remain pending for months without an effective hearing.
• Litigants many of them elderly veterans and widows are compelled to travel to other Benches.
• Interim matters involving livelihood, promotion and retirement remain undecided.
• Confidence in the institution steadily erodes.

Appointments to judicial office cannot be allowed to become victims of bureaucratic delay. A calendar-based appointment mechanism should ensure that every vacancy is filled well before the retirement of the incumbent, and once appointed, joining formalities should be completed within a fixed statutory period. Justitia non est neganda, non differenda justice is neither to be denied nor delayed.

2. Non-Implementation of AFT Orders: Winning the Case, Losing the Relief

A judgment has value only when it is implemented. One of the most disturbing features of practice before the AFT is that even after an applicant succeeds, implementation often becomes another round of litigation. Numerous execution petitions remain pending because orders are implemented after considerable delay, after being challenge before high court and thereafter in Supreme court before implementation or complied with.

The result is perverse: instead of obtaining relief after years of litigation, veterans are forced into repeated execution proceedings merely to secure compliance with orders already passed in their favour. I have written earlier about how the Tribunal itself has begun drawing the line on non-compliance, recording prima facie findings of deliberate disobedience against Service Headquarters. The Supreme Court has likewise had to remind the Government to stop dragging disabled veterans through avoidable appeals.

Government departments must recognise that compliance with judicial orders is a constitutional obligation, not an administrative option. The Ministry of Defence should establish dedicated implementation cells with accountability at senior levels, and every AFT judgment should be monitored until complete compliance is achieved.

3. Routine Delay in Filing Counter Affidavits

Another major contributor to pendency is the routine failure of respondents to file Counter Affidavits within prescribed timelines. In matter after matter, repeated adjournments are sought; replies arrive months late; sometimes they are filed only after repeated judicial directions.

Every unnecessary adjournment has a face behind it: a serving soldier whose promotion is stalled, a disabled veteran awaiting disability pension, a widow seeking family pension. Government litigation policy must fix responsibility on the departments concerned for timely pleadings, and officers responsible for avoidable delays should be held accountable.

4. Acute Shortage of Registry and Administrative Staff

Judicial Members alone cannot deliver justice. Efficient functioning requires adequate Court Masters, Registrars, stenographers, clerical staff, IT personnel, record-management staff and process-serving personnel. Many AFT Benches operate with skeletal manpower, which directly affects the listing of cases, preparation of records, uploading of orders and overall court administration.

Investment in judicial manpower is an investment in justice itself.

5. Inadequate Infrastructure and Court Space

Several AFT Benches continue to function with limited physical infrastructure: insufficient courtrooms, lack of chambers, inadequate record rooms, a shortage of waiting areas for litigants, no conference facilities and limited digital infrastructure. The Principal Bench itself faces increasing pressure from growing pendency and an expanding jurisdiction.

Modern tribunals require modern infrastructure. E-filing, paperless courts, virtual hearings, adequate court halls and dedicated spaces for lawyers and litigants are no longer luxuries, they are the minimum conditions of credible justice delivery.

Beyond Infrastructure: Institutional Independence

The credibility of a tribunal ultimately depends not merely on legal provisions but on institutional independence. Timely appointments, adequate budgetary support, professional administration and respect for judicial decisions together inspire public confidence. The Armed Forces Tribunal must be viewed as an integral part of the justice-delivery system, not as another department under executive administration. It is an uncomfortable irony that the Ministry which is the principal respondent before the Tribunal is also the Ministry that administers it.

The Way Forward: An Eight-Point Reform Agenda

1. Fill vacancies before they arise through a calendar-based, time-bound appointment process for Judicial and Administrative Members.
2. Fix a joining deadline, every appointed Member must assume charge within a prescribed period.
3. Create a dedicated implementation cell in the Ministry of Defence to monitor compliance with every AFT judgment until closure.
4. Mandate timelines for Counter Affidavits, with personal accountability for avoidable delays.
5. Strengthen Registry staff across all Benches.
6. Upgrade infrastructure, adequate courtrooms, chambers, record rooms and litigant facilities.
7. Adopt comprehensive e-filing, electronic records and virtual hearings wherever appropriate.
8. Institutionalise coordination between the judiciary, the Ministry of Defence and the Tribunal administration to resolve operational issues.

Conclusion: A National Obligation, Not an Administrative Choice

The Armed Forces Tribunal was established to provide specialised and expeditious justice to those who dedicate their lives to the service of the nation. Its effectiveness cannot be measured merely by the number of judgments delivered, but by the confidence it inspires among soldiers, veterans and their families.

The Hon’ble Chief Justice’s call for restoring the credibility of tribunals should become the catalyst for comprehensive reform of the AFT. Justice delayed for those who defend the nation is justice denied to the very institution that safeguards our constitutional democracy. Strengthening the Armed Forces Tribunal is therefore not merely an administrative necessity, it is a national obligation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)?

The Armed Forces Tribunal is a specialised judicial body constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. It adjudicates service matters of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel including pension, promotion, discharge and disciplinary disputes and hears appeals against court-martial verdicts.

What happens if the Government does not implement an AFT order?

The applicant can file an execution petition before the Tribunal. Under Section 19 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the AFT also has the power to punish for contempt with the same authority as a High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Why are AFT cases delayed?

The principal causes are vacancies of Judicial Members leaving Benches non-functional, late filing of Counter Affidavits by Government respondents, shortage of Registry staff, and inadequate courtroom and digital infrastructure. Structural reforms addressing all four are needed to reduce pendency.

Can a veteran approach the AFT for a pension dispute?

Yes. Disputes relating to service pension, disability pension, family pension and retiral benefits of Armed Forces personnel fall squarely within the AFT’s jurisdiction, and an Original Application can be filed before the Bench having territorial jurisdiction.

About the Author: Wing Commander Ajit Kakkar (Retd.) is an Advocate practising before the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi) and the Central Administrative Tribunal. A veteran of the Indian Air Force, he heads Ajit Kakkar and Associates, a firm dedicated to military and service law for the Armed Forces, paramilitary personnel and their families.