Monday, April 30, 2018

SCI v. MoD v. AFT

The Statesman has run this strong editorial about the flak the Indian Ministry of Defence has been getting from the Supreme Court over its practice of filing unwarranted appeals from the Armed Forces Tribunal. Excerpt:
The defence minister is best-placed to either permit the AFT to “deliver” as envisaged, or muster the moral courage to junk the Tribunal. For far too long have the bureaucrats used every ruse in the book to hinder the functioning of the AFT, and have driven many a military veteran to despair and financial ruin when litigating for benefits they “earned” when braving the elements and enemy bullets defending the nation’s territorial integrity and honour.

1 comment:

  1. Supreme Court of India imposes Rs 1 Lakh fine on Ministry of defence twice in 30 days.
    SC: Union of India engaged 10 lawyers for a settled issue
    In its order on Wednesday, the bench observed that Union of India had engaged 10 lawyers for an already settled issue, including an additional solicitor general and a senior advocate and created a “huge financial liability” by asking “taxpayers to bear an avoidable financial burden for the misadventure.”

    The Supreme Court went on to observe that it hoped that “someday some sense, if not better sense, will prevail on Union of India with regard to formulation of a realistic and meaningful National Litigation Policy”.
    A division bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta passed the orders on Wednesday while dismissing a bunch of appeals by the ministry in a case related to pay and pensionary benefits of veterans from the lower ranks. The judges said that the ministry’s “couldn’t care less and insouciant (casual lack of concern) attitude has gone a little too far”.
    Observing that the ministry was pursuing frivolous and infructuous appeals against the National Litigation Policy, the bench said that “if the Union of India cares little for the justice delivery system, it should at least display some concern for litigants, many of whom have to spend a small fortune in litigating in the SC.”

    Does any thing need be stated further?


Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).