L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261

Bench

A 7-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court:

• Justice A.M. Ahmadi (Chief Justice of India)
• Justice M.K. Mukherjee
• Justice K. Venkataswami
• Justice B.N. Kirpal
• Justice S.C. Sen
• Justice Saghir Ahmad
• Justice G.T. Nanavati

Facts

• The case arose from multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, which provided for the establishment of Administrative Tribunals and barred the jurisdiction of High Courts over matters decided by these tribunals.
• The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) introduced Articles 323A and 323B, allowing Parliament to create tribunals for adjudicating service matters, tax disputes, and other specialized fields.
• The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was enacted under Article 323A, leading to the formation of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) for service matters.
• The petitioners argued that excluding judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 violated the basic structure doctrine, as judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Constitution.

Issues

• Whether the exclusion of jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court over tribunal decisions under Articles 323A and 323B was unconstitutional.
• Whether Administrative Tribunals could replace High Courts as the final adjudicators in service and administrative matters.
• Whether judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

• Judicial Review as a Basic Structure: The Supreme Court ruled that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be removed by any constitutional amendment.
• Tribunals Cannot Replace High Courts: The Court held that tribunals like the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) cannot function as substitutes for High Courts.
• High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction Restored: The Court struck down provisions that barred the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, ruling that tribunal decisions must be subject to judicial review by High Courts.
• Tribunals to Function as Supplementary Bodies: While tribunals were recognized as useful for reducing the burden on courts, they were to function as subsidiary bodies, with their decisions being reviewable by High Courts.

Observations

• Tribunals Play a Limited Role: The Court observed that tribunals serve an important role in reducing the case load of courts but cannot be considered as replacements for High Courts.
• Judicial Review is Essential for Democracy: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review is essential for upholding constitutional rights and ensuring accountability of the executive.
• Parliament Cannot Oust High Court’s Powers: The ruling made it clear that any law that attempts to exclude judicial review is unconstitutional.

Decision

• The Supreme Court struck down provisions barring judicial review of tribunal decisions, ruling them unconstitutional.
• The Court held that High Courts have jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to review tribunal decisions.
• The tribunals would continue to function, but their decisions would remain subject to review by High Courts and ultimately by the Supreme Court under Article 136.

Important Terms

1. Article 323A – Allows Parliament to create tribunals for service matters and excludes the jurisdiction of High Courts.
2. Article 323B – Allows tribunals for tax, industrial, and other disputes, with the possibility of excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts.
3. Judicial Review – The power of courts to review and strike down unconstitutional laws or executive actions.
4. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – The law that created Central and State Administrative Tribunals to handle service matters.
5. Basic Structure Doctrine – A principle that certain features of the Constitution, such as judicial review, cannot be altered by Parliament.
6. Article 226 & 227 – Grant High Courts the power of judicial review over all lower courts and tribunals.
7. Article 136 – Gives the Supreme Court the power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment from any tribunal or High Court.