CHANDIGARH: The Army authorities would not be able to deny the execution of orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), as the central government has empowered the AFT with the powers of execution prescribed in the civil procedure code (CPC).
The powers of execution of orders under CPC includes the civil arrest, civil contempt and attachment of property of defaulters till the orders are not executed.
A statement regarding the empowerment of AFTs with execution powers under CPC was made on Monday by the central government before the Punjab and Haryana high court in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking powers to ensure compliance of orders passed by AFT.
When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, the central government submitted that the AFT could follow the procedure prescribed under Order XXI of the CPC.
Hearing this, the division bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul disposed of the PIL on the satisfaction expressed by the petitioner's counsel on the issue.
The PIL filed by the founder president of AFT Chandigarh bar association, Major Navdeep Singh, had submitted that the ministry of defence (MoD) has refused to implement the orders passed by AFT even when upheld by Supreme Court.
Pointing out some provisions of the Armed Force Tribunal Act ordain execution of its orders, the petitioner informed that the procedure is not laid down and neither does the AFT have powers of civil contempt.
The PIL had sought directions to the law ministry to either notify or amplify the procedure of execution of AFT orders or that the AFT be directed to initiate criminal contempt proceedings in each case of non-compliance. There are more than 3000 cases of the AFT that have not been complied with by the Government on the pretext that the decisions are against 'Government policy'.
The PIL had also stated that the Chandigarh bench of AFT though is imposing costs on MoD for non-compliance of its orders but the said costs were being directed to be paid to the registrar of the AFT rather than the litigants which was not only against the concept of "costs" but also directly against law laid down by constitutional courts. The petition says that costs are hence being paid from one pocket of the government to another which itself is alien to law.
The powers of execution of orders under CPC includes the civil arrest, civil contempt and attachment of property of defaulters till the orders are not executed.
A statement regarding the empowerment of AFTs with execution powers under CPC was made on Monday by the central government before the Punjab and Haryana high court in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking powers to ensure compliance of orders passed by AFT.
When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, the central government submitted that the AFT could follow the procedure prescribed under Order XXI of the CPC.
Hearing this, the division bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul disposed of the PIL on the satisfaction expressed by the petitioner's counsel on the issue.
The PIL filed by the founder president of AFT Chandigarh bar association, Major Navdeep Singh, had submitted that the ministry of defence (MoD) has refused to implement the orders passed by AFT even when upheld by Supreme Court.
Pointing out some provisions of the Armed Force Tribunal Act ordain execution of its orders, the petitioner informed that the procedure is not laid down and neither does the AFT have powers of civil contempt.
The PIL had sought directions to the law ministry to either notify or amplify the procedure of execution of AFT orders or that the AFT be directed to initiate criminal contempt proceedings in each case of non-compliance. There are more than 3000 cases of the AFT that have not been complied with by the Government on the pretext that the decisions are against 'Government policy'.
The PIL had also stated that the Chandigarh bench of AFT though is imposing costs on MoD for non-compliance of its orders but the said costs were being directed to be paid to the registrar of the AFT rather than the litigants which was not only against the concept of "costs" but also directly against law laid down by constitutional courts. The petition says that costs are hence being paid from one pocket of the government to another which itself is alien to law.
Courtsesy: Times of India
No comments:
Post a Comment