Leave to appeal
Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 deals with leave to appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court shall lie with the leave of the Tribunal; The Act came into force on 15 Jun 2008.
(1) An appeal to the Supreme Court shall lie with the leave of the Tribunal; and such leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Tribunal that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision, or it appears to the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered by that Court.
(2) An application to the Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court shall be made within a period of thirty days beginning with the date of the decision of the Tribunal and an application to the Supreme Court for leave shall be made within a period of thirty days beginning with the date on which the application for leave is refused by the Tribunal.
(3) An appeal shall be treated as pending until any application for leave to appeal is disposed of and if leave to appeal is granted, until the appeal is disposed of; and an application for leave to appeal shall be treated as disposed of at the expiration of the time within which it might have been made, but it is not made within that time.
Section 31, 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.
Referred to by 2
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.31 — leave to appeal to Supreme Court; considered with the AFT appeal scheme that coexists with Art.226
-
Union of India vs No. 14558266 Ex Havildar Vijender Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court condoned delays in filing multiple appeals by the Union of India against Armed Forces Tribunal orders affecting ex-servicemen service entitlements and pension disputes. The Court examined the merits of consolidated leave to appeal applications under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and disposed of the appeals through a signed reportable judgment, establishing binding precedent on principles governing appellate review of Armed Forces Tribunal decisions and ex-servicemen service-related rights.
On this section: Leave to appeal provision - the court examined whether the Union of India could seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court against Armed Forces Tribunal orders. Section 31(1) governs the conditions and circumstances under which leave to appeal can be granted against tribunal decisions.
-
Union Of India vs Balbir Singh Turn
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matters involving appeals by government agencies against Armed Forces Tribunal decisions relating to military service benefits and discharge of servicemen, delay in filing appeals may be condoned where the disputes raise substantial questions of law affecting multiple personnel, and where a reportable judgment would provide necessary guidance on the scope of tribunal jurisdiction and the standards for awarding service benefits. The Supreme Court will exercise its appellate jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 to review tribunal orders for legal correctness while respecting the tribunal's factual findings unless they are manifestly unreasonable or violate principles of natural justice.
On this section: Provision establishing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals against orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal on questions of law or fact
-
Union Of India vs Ex Havildar Sanjeev Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court's ratio decidendi involves the proper legal framework and standards for reviewing Armed Forces Tribunal decisions in service matters, including the scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and the principles governing pension entitlements, service record corrections, and military disciplinary decisions. The court appears to have established that while military decisions deserve deference, they are not immune from judicial review when they violate statutory requirements, procedural fairness, or exceed jurisdictional authority.
On this section: Jurisdiction and scope of Supreme Court's appellate authority over Armed Forces Tribunal orders; requirements for leave to appeal
-
Union Of India vs No. 14538512P Ex Hav (Honorary Naib Subedar) Prakash Chand Thakur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court established through this consolidated judgment that appeals from Armed Forces Tribunal orders relating to military service benefits, pension adjustments, and service credit determinations are properly cognizable under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; that delay in filing such appeals can be condoned where the appellant demonstrates reasonable cause; and that consolidated hearing of multiple related military service disputes is procedurally appropriate and judicially efficient when they arise from the same administrative source and involve similar legal and factual issues.
On this section: Provides the statutory authority for filing appeals before the Supreme Court from Armed Forces Tribunal orders; this provision is central to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear these military service disputes
-
Union Of India vs Hawa Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The delay in filing civil appeals from the Armed Forces Tribunal can be condoned when appellants demonstrate reasonable cause, particularly in cases involving technical procedural requirements and complex military benefit statutes. The Supreme Court retains discretion to grant leave to appeal under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 when substantial questions of law regarding military service entitlements are presented, and procedural technicalities such as filing certified copies may be exempted where justice requires.
On this section: Provision enabling leave to appeal to Supreme Court from Armed Forces Tribunal decisions; multiple interlocutory applications sought leave under this section
-
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 restrictive provision requiring that appeal to Supreme Court shall lie only with leave of the Tribunal, and such leave shall not be granted unless certified that a point of law of general public importance is involved. Court recognized this as restrictive mechanism that does not address personal service matters.
-
Union Of India vs Balbir Singh Turn
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) granted to Personnel Below Officer Rank in the Indian Armed Forces is an integral part of the pay structure and not an allowance. Accordingly, as per the Government Resolution dated 30.08.2008, which applied the revised pay structure including grade pay with effect from 01.01.2006, the MACP benefit is applicable from 01.01.2006 and not from 01.09.2008. The administrative instruction issued by the Ministry of Defence dated 30.05.2011, which restricted the application of MACP to 01.09.2008 onwards, is ultra vires the Cabinet decision embodied in the Resolution dated 30.08.2008.
On this section: Jurisdictional provision under which appeals were filed in the Supreme Court against AFT orders
-
Union Of India vs Balbir Singh Turn
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) granted to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) is part of the pay structure and not an allowance. Consequently, as per the government resolution dated 30.08.2008 which made the revised pay structure applicable from 01.01.2006, the MACP scheme is applicable from 01.01.2006 and not from 01.09.2008. Administrative instructions or letters cannot override or modify a Cabinet decision reflected in a government resolution.
On this section: Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal to grant leave to appeal from the orders of the tribunal
-
Union Of India vs Ex Havildar Chattar Pal Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court's decision establishes principles governing the jurisdiction to review Armed Forces Tribunal orders, the standards applicable to interpret military service regulations and pension entitlements, and the extent to which the Supreme Court will intervene in matters affecting ex-servicemen's rights. The judgment clarifies whether the Tribunal's relief was sustainable and sets binding precedent for similar service disputes.
On this section: Provides for appeals to the Supreme Court against Tribunal orders; multiple interlocutory applications under this provision for leave to appeal
-
Union Of India vs Balbir Singh Turn
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the exact ratio is not fully evident from the order record provided, the implied ratio appears to be: In appeals concerning military service benefits under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Supreme Court will condone delays in filing appeals when genuine service-related questions are involved affecting elderly ex-servicemen, and will conduct consolidated review of tribunal orders interpreting military pension regulations to ensure consistent application of service rules across all ranks and categories of military personnel.
On this section: Provides for appeal to Supreme Court from tribunal orders under specific conditions; cited in multiple applications for leave to appeal
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 20250/2021 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-08-2019 in OA No. 502/2016 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal] UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS (IA No. 123811/2021 - LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 31(1) OF THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 IA No. 123814/2021 - STAY APPLICATION) Date : 21-11-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH For Petitioner(s) | | Mr. …
Questions about Section 31
What have the courts held on Section 31 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.31 — leave to appeal to Supreme Court; considered with the AFT appeal scheme that coexists with Art.226. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2017 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 31 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 31, section 31 Armed Forces Tribunal Act, section 31 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. 11 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 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act come into force?
Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, cited as Armed Forces Tribunal Act 31, 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 16 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.