UNION OF INDIA vs LT COL MUKUL DEV

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15 November 2025 Pronounced on: 23 February 2026 + W.P.(C) 12769/2024 & CM APPL. 53189/2024 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, with Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Ms. Ashima Chopra, Advs. with Major Anish Muralidhar and Brig Ajeen Kumar versus LT COL MUKUL DEV .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Manglik, Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Mr. Ajit Kakkar and Ms. Sonal Singh, Advs. with Col Mukul Dev CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT 23.02.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. A. The Issue 1. We are required, in this writ petition, which emanates from a detailed judgment dated 31 July 2024 of a Full Bench of three learned Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi1, to interpret 1 “AFT” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12769/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 39 KUMAR Signing Date:23.02.2026 12:50:14 Sections 192 and 293 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 20074, read with Rule 255 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 20086. 2. Expressed otherwise, we are required to gauge the reach of the arms of the AFT, in ensuring implementation of the orders passed by it. 3. The issue is purely legal and, therefore, is fact agnostic. 4. The Armed Forces Tribunal Amendment Bill, 2012 Before, however, proceeding to the issue, it has to be mentioned that the Armed Forces Tribunal Amendment Bill, 20127 proposed to substitute Section 19 of the AFT Act to read as under: “19. The Tribunal shall have, and exercise, the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has and may exercise and, for this purpose, the provisions of 2 19. Power to punish for contempt. – (1) Any