High Court jurisdiction over Tribunal orders depends solely on the Tribunal's territorial location.

The petitioners were discharged from service on academic grounds and challenged their discharge by filing Original Applications (OAs) under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

These OAs were heard and dismissed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in New Delhi via a common order dated 19.09.2025

The petitioners subsequently filed the present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court to quash the AFT’s order and seek reinstatement

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, noting that the impugned order was passed by the Principal Bench in New Delhi and that other parties to the same order had already approached the Delhi High Court

The petitioners argued that under Rule 6(2) of the AFT (Procedure) Rules, 2008, jurisdiction could be invoked where the applicant ordinarily resides

1. Whether the Allahabad High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against an order passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal located in New Delhi

The decisions of Tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls, as established in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

High Courts cannot look into the "bundle of facts" or cause of action under Article 226(2) of the Constitution to ascertain territorial jurisdiction when the Tribunal's seat is outside their jurisdiction, as clarified in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay.

Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 determines the place for filing OAs but does not dictate the High Court’s judicial review jurisdiction.

The issue of jurisdiction is no longer res integra following the Supreme Court’s decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay.

Since the impugned order was passed by the Principal Bench of the AFT in New Delhi, only the High Court with jurisdiction over New Delhi (the Delhi High Court) possesses the authority for judicial review.

The law declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by looking into the cause of action to confer jurisdiction under Article 226(2), thereby rejecting the petitioners' reliance on Rule 6(2) of the 2008 Rules.

Allowing such petitions would lead to "indefiniteness and multiplicity" of proceedings, particularly where multiple parties from different states are aggrieved by a single common order.

The precedents cited by the petitioners were either irrelevant to the seat of the Tribunal or addressed different legal issues.

Challenges to AFT Principal Bench orders must be filed in the High Court within whose territory the Tribunal is situated.

The petition was dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum (Delhi High Court) in accordance with the law.