Appeal to Supreme Court
Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 deals with appeal to Supreme Court. Subject to the provisions of section 31, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court against the final decision or order of the Tribunal (other than an order passed under section 19): Provided that such appeal is preferred within a period of ninety days of the said decision or order: Provided further t The Act came into force on 15 Jun 2008.
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 31, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court against the final decision or order of the Tribunal (other than an order passed under section 19):
Provided that such appeal is preferred within a period of ninety days of the said decision or order:
Provided further that there shall be no appeal against an interlocutory order of the Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court as of right from any order or decision of the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt:
Provided that an appeal under this sub-section shall be filed in the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of the order appealed against.
(3) Pending any appeal under sub-section (2), the Supreme Court may order that--
(a) the execution of the punishment or the order appealed against be suspended; or
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail:
Provided that where an appellant satisfies the Tribunal that he intends to prefer an appeal, the Tribunal may also exercise any of the powers conferred under clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be.
Section 30, The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (Act 55 of 2007).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Union of India v. Parashotam Dass
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — including the service and appeal jurisdiction in ss.14–15 and the Supreme Court appeal/leave pathway in ss.30–31 — does not oust the High Courts’ writ jurisdiction under Article 226; tribunalisation cannot dilute the basic-structure guarantee of judicial review, so aggrieved personnel may still invoke Article 226 notwithstanding the AFT statutory scheme.
On this section: s.30 — appeal to Supreme Court from AFT; statutory appeal path does not extinguish High Court writ jurisdiction
-
Union of India vs Cdr. Priya Khurana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The statutory notifications dated 9 October 1991 and 6 November 1998 issued under Section 9(2) of the Navy Act 1957 lifted the bar on women's appointment in the Indian Navy and rendered the Regulations applicable to women officers on the same terms as men officers. The policy decision dated 25 February 1999 established that SSC officers (including women) would be considered for permanent commission in accordance with Regulation 203 of the 1963 Regulations. This policy was binding and not merely anticipatory. The policy letter dated 26 September 2008, insofar as it made the grant of permanent commission prospective and restricted it to specified cadres/branches, was invalid and arbitrary, having been issued without consideration of the earlier 1999 policy and without proper reasoned deliberation. Women SSC officers in the Navy are entitled to be considered for permanent commission on the same terms as men officers in the branches where women were notified under Section 9(2), namely Logistics, Law, and Education. Arguments that women are unsuited for sea-going duties based on physiological differences or lack of infrastructure constitute sex stereotypes and do not provide a constitutionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity. The grant of permanent commission to women SSC officers is required by the binding policy dated 25 February 1999 read with Regulation 203, and the failure to implement this right cannot be justified by subsequent cadre saturation caused by the Union Government's own breach of duty.
On this section: Deals with appeal procedures to the Supreme Court from AFT decisions. The Court interpreted these sections in the context of whether the Union Government's failure to appeal certain companion cases from the AFT judgment constitutes res judicata, ultimately deciding to address the matter on merits rather than on procedural grounds.
-
Union Of India vs Parashotam Dass
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise judicial review is not inhibited, and a complete bar on the exercise of such jurisdiction by the High Court to review decisions arising from the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot be sustained as it would violate the basic structure of the Constitution. While High Courts must exercise self-restraint and recognize the distinct nature of the Armed Forces Tribunal, they retain the power to grant appropriate relief if the Tribunal's proceedings result in denial of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. does not lay down the correct law and is overruled.
On this section: Analyzed as providing appellate mechanism to the Supreme Court against final decisions of the Tribunal. Shows that appeals are subject to restrictions under Section 31.
-
Union Of India vs Parashotam Dass
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power of High Courts to exercise judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be completely barred or excluded, even by statute establishing tribunals, as judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. High Courts retain jurisdiction to review orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and such review is available when proceedings result in denial of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or contain jurisdictional errors or errors of law apparent on the face of the record. However, High Courts must exercise this jurisdiction with appropriate self-restraint, confining review to examination of legality and constitutionality rather than re-appreciation of evidence or facts.
On this section: Provides restrictive appeal mechanism to Supreme Court only on point of law of general public importance, limiting access to higher appeals
-
Ex Lt. Col. S. S. Bedi vs Union of India Ministry of Defence Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Court determined the proper interpretation of Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, establishing the scope of the tribunal's appellate jurisdiction and the standards by which higher courts should review tribunal decisions. The judgment clarified the boundaries of tribunal authority and the remedial framework available to military personnel dissatisfied with tribunal rulings.
On this section: Appellate jurisdiction and procedure for appeals from Armed Forces Tribunal decisions; central to determining the scope of tribunal authority and the court's power to review tribunal orders
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 30
What have the courts held on Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act?
Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (21 Mar 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.30 — appeal to Supreme Court from AFT; statutory appeal path does not extinguish High Court writ jurisdiction. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2020 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Armed Forces Tribunal Act 30, section 30 Armed Forces Tribunal Act, section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (21 Mar 2023).
What should I read with Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 19 (Power to punish for contempt), section 31 (Leave to appeal), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act come into force?
Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, cited as Armed Forces Tribunal Act 30, came into force on 15 Jun 2008, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2007. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in matters of appeal against court martial560 words
- 3. Definitions498 words
- 26. Condition as to making of interim order387 words
- 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters338 words
- 41. Power of Central Government to make rules327 words
- 16. Re-trial311 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.