Retired service personnel may file AFT applications before the bench where they ordinarily reside.

The petitioner superannuated from service on 31 October 2024. A charge-sheet was served on him on 15 May 2025, and, following General Court Martial proceedings conducted at Tibri Military Station, Punjab, he was found guilty of six charges on 8 October 2025 and sentenced to dismissal and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

He filed Original Application No. 22 of 2026 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, challenging the charge-sheet and the court-martial outcome. The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that neither the relevant events nor the petitioner’s posting or attachment fell within the Mumbai Bench’s jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged that dismissal in the High Court.

Whether the Mumbai Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s application under Rule 6(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, notwithstanding that the cause of action and his service postings were outside its territorial limits.

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the application could stand when it had not considered Rule 6(2), which permits a person who has ceased to be in service to file an application before the Bench within whose jurisdiction that person ordinarily resides.

Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal in relation to service matters, while Section 15 provides for appeals concerning court-martial orders, decisions, findings or sentences.

Rule 6(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 ordinarily links the place of filing to the applicant’s posting or attachment, or to where the cause of action wholly or partly arose. Rule 6(2), which begins with a non-obstante clause, independently gives a person who has ceased to be in service by retirement or other specified means the option to file before the Bench within whose jurisdiction that person ordinarily resides at the time of filing.

The Tribunal relied on Rule 6(1), finding that the incident occurred in Amritsar and the court-martial proceedings took place in Punjab, and that the petitioner’s relevant posting or attachment was outside Mumbai.

The High Court held that this reasoning was incomplete because the petitioner had retired before filing the application and Rule 6(2) applied independently of Rule 6(1). As a retired person, the petitioner could exercise the option to file in the jurisdiction where he ordinarily resided at the time of filing; the Tribunal’s failure to consider that provision rendered its jurisdictional conclusion unsustainable.

It quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 25 September 2026 and restored Original Application No. 22 of 2026 for adjudication on the merits. The petitioner was granted liberty to move the Tribunal for interim relief.