The Supreme Court on Monday, while commending the active participation of the armed forces in Chandigarh (which includes Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh), reiterated the need for regional benches of the Armed Forces Court (AFT) in these states, as well as district benches.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh asked the Center to provide data on the status of appointment and selection process of judicial and other bench members across the country.
“Can we have a district bench in Chandigarh, and then, as we have done in the Family Courts, they can hold district benches in Jammu and Srinagar? That will give an opportunity to the local Bar to help them. It will also lead to cost-efficiency and greater access to justice In matters of Himachal, they can go in Shimla and Dharamshala, where basic infrastructure is available for hearing and reducing the cost of litigation.
The court was hearing a petition by the Madras Bar Association, raising issues of vacancies and related concerns in the Military Court, Chandigarh.
The apex court also asked the Attorney General of India to provide the current status of vacancies in various courts, stages of the ongoing selection process, and explore the possibility of establishing circuit benches to provide easy access to justice.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the Union Government has repeatedly assured that the necessary persons will be appointed, but no major progress has been achieved. He emphasized that now there is only one AFT bench left in Chandigarh and that the member has been transferred without appointing a replacement.
Advocate General R Venkataramani informed the bench that the AFT Chairman handles internal administrative matters and that the selection process continues throughout the year.
In this regard, the bench observed, “We are concerned only with timely appointments. Sometimes, it is not the Union alone that is at fault.”
The court also suggested to consider the process of early selection of the members of the Tribunal, as the date of the member leaving the office is known in advance. The case was to be heard after six weeks.