CASE STUDY

ON
L. CHANDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR1997 SC 1125

SESSION: - 2023-24

Submitted by: -
MONALISHA SAINI

ROLL NO: 42
SEMESTER: - II L.L.M. (General)

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN,

JAIPUR

1
 DECLARATION

I, MONALISHA SAINI, hereby declare that this Case Study titled “ L. Chandra Kumar
v. Union of India, AIR1997 SC 1125” is based on the original research work carried out
by me. The interpretations put forth are based on my reading and understanding of the
original texts. The books, articles, websites etc. which have been relied upon by me have
been duly acknowledged at the respective places in text.

For the present project which I am submitting to the university, no degree or diploma has
been conferred on me before, either in this or any other university.

Signature
Monalisha Saini
Date: – 30/04/2024
Roll No: 42
Semester: – II

2
 CERTIFICATE

Date: 29.04.2024

Department of Law

University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

This is to certify that MONALISHA SAINI, student of II Semester, of Department of Law,

University of Rajasthan has carried out case study on “L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India, AIR1997 SC 1125” under my supervision and guidance. It is study report of a
minor project. The student has completed research work in stipulated time and according
to norms prescribed for the purpose.

SUPERVISOR

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project is incomplete without thanking a few people who have been my pillar of
support throughout this work. I owe my gratitude to all those people who have made this
project possible.

I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my teachers for their continuous
support. They are always been there to listen, guide and help me and has been constantly
monitoring the progress of my work and showed me the different ways to approach a
research problem and also the need to become persistent to accomplish my mission.

I am also obliged to acknowledge the college administration for providing a wonderful

library which is a storehouse of knowledge and also for providing all the electronic
resources without which no such research could have been possible.

Finally I would like to thank everybody who played a significant role in the successful
completion of my dissertation.

Monalisha Saini

4
 Table of Contents

DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................... 2

CERTIFICATE, ....................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 4

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. 6

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 7

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 8

FACTS OF THE CASE ..........................................................................................................11

ISSUES RAISED, ...................................................................................................................12

VERDICT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................................13

OBSERVATION BY THE BIGGER BENCH ........................................................................18

RATIO DECENDI ..................................................................................................................19

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE .................................................................................20

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................22

BIBLIOGRAPHY, ..................................................................................................................23

5
 ABSTRACT

The analysis explores how judicial review which is fundamental concept in legal worldwide as it
safeguards individual rights and upholds the rule of law. It emphasizes the courts’ role as
guardians of the constitution, ensuring a delicate balance among government branches. Judicial
review extends beyond legislations to cover executive and administrative decisions which helps in
providing compensation for unlawful government actions.

The analysis then delves into the landmark case of L. CHANDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF
INDIA of 1997 which challenges the constitutionality of the administrative Tribunals Act of 1985.
The case’s significance lies in defining the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court
aligning with the constitutional principles. This paper also focuses on drawing parallels with other
key precedents as it underscores the court’s commitment to the basic structure doctrine and
separation of powers. In the end this paper provides the personal view point of the author and also
give some suggestions to make tribunals more efficient and regulate them without violating the
judicial review and the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.

6
 BACKGROUND

The three elements of judicial review in India are judicial review of administrative activities,
judicial review of legislative activities, and judicial review of judicial decisions. The primary
problem with the judicial system is the length of time it takes to conclude trials, which causes a
backlog of a large number of cases that ultimately burden the Court/ and authorities. The
establishment of a tribunal for a specific purpose is recommended by various commissions and
reform committees as a way to integrate that mechanism with the judiciary.
The Law Commission recommended in 1958 that tribunals be set up, which consist of judicial and
administrative members, to handle disputes related to service matters. Thereafter, the Administrative
Reform Commission in 1969 recommended that a Civil Service Tribunal be established to handle the
matter for state and federal public officials. The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which
took into consideration and introduced Part XIV-A through Article 46 of the Constitution and
included Article 323A and Article 323B providing for the establishment of tribunals dealing with
matters related to administrative action and other problems, was passed by the Parliament.

The constitutionality of Articles 323A and 323B was largely disputed because they were analysed
against the spirit of the Constitution. The introduction of Articles 323A and 323B presumes that they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court as provided in Articles 226/ 227 and also the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court as provided in Article 32 of the Constitution.

The question that arises is whether the judicial oversight vested in the High Court in Articles 226/
227 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court in Article 32 form part of the fundamental structure
of the Constitution. The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution has been elaborated and
deliberated in detail in many of the similar rulings in the case of Kesavananda Bharati’s. A thorough
discussion or analysis of the case of L. Chandra Kumar will help to clarify the position of the
Administrative Tribunal/ Court with respect to judicial oversights and the basic structure of the
Constitution.

7
 INTRODUCTION

Supreme Court of India

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 481 of 1980
PETITIONER: L. Chandra Kumar

RESPONDENT: Union of India and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1997

BENCH: A.M. Ahmadi CJI & M.M. Punchhi & K. Ramaswamy & S.P. Bharucha & S. Saghir
Ahmad & K. Venkataswami & K.T. Thomas

The vital concept that provides the provisions to the court of law to examine the constitutionality,
legality and fairness of administrative and legislative actions, is referred to as Judicial review,
serving as a crucial aspect to ensure the system of check balances within the operational
boundaries of the government actions, constitutional principles and individual rights. Judicial
review acts as a pivotal safeguard against potential abuse of arbitrary powers, actions and abuses
of fundamental rights. The process of judicial review stands essential for upholding and maintain
the balance amongst the three organs of the government, the executive, the legislative and the
judiciary, through the process of rule of law, and abiding by the basic structure of the Indian
constitution. Administrative tribunals, the specialized quasi-judicial bodies designed to resolve
specific disputed outside of regular courts, established under articles 323A and 323B of the Indian
Constitution, offering efficiency and export solution on the same, have been amidst a heated
debate, conflicting with jurisdiction of the courts. The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985
aimed to create these tribunals to address and adjudicate matters related to service of government
employees. However, concerns regarding potential violation of separation of powers arose, as
executive was the one who was responsible for setting up and administration of these tribunals,
compromising the essence of judicial review. In the pivotal case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India 1997, the Supreme Court addressed these concerns and offered a balanced approach towards
the same. Acknowledging the effective need for specialized tribunals, and emphasizing the
importance of application of constitutional safeguards and upholding the spirit of the constitution,
which judicial review stands to be an essential part of, the judgment made a pivotal impact on the
ongoing discussions. The court’s decree aimed itself to contribute the efficiency and expertise of
specialized tribunals with broader emphasis to constitutional safeguards of judicial review by
8
higher judiciary. These acts acted in a way to ensure effective dispute resolution while upholding
constitutional principles and protecting individual rights. By maintaining the said balance, the
legal and judicial system can take the best interest and benefit of people and nation from the
advantages of both the systems.
Part IVA-A of the Constitution of India introduces two articles that deal with and are entitled to
tribunals, as are detailed below:

 Article 323-A deals with administrative tribunals.

 Article 323-B deals with the Tribunals for other matters.

The details of the above-mentioned articles are fully explained hereunder.

Article 323 A- Establishment of an administrative tribunal for service matters:

In order to adjudicate disputes, cases, and complaints involving the centre, the cantons, the
cooperative bodies, the municipal bodies, and other public authorities, the Parliament established an
administrative tribunal in Article 323A. Simply put, the Parliament has granted the administrative
tribunal the power to hear cases and decide disputes involving public service issues from all types of
tribunals.

The law introduces provisions that deal not only with jurisdiction but also with the authority and
power exercised by tribunals, the procedures to be followed, and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of
all courts save for the authority granted to the Supreme Court of India as provided in Article 136 of
the Indian Constitution.

Article 323 B- Establishment of an administrative tribunal for matters other than service
matters:

The introduction of Article 323B of the Constitution empowers the establishment of an

administrative tribunal by the Parliament and State Legislature to deal with cases other than those
covered in Article 323A. This Tribunal assesses and evaluates the cases that relate to industrial and
labour disputes and complaints, import and export, foreign exchange, the right to rent and lease,
ceilings for urban real estate, elections in Parliament and state legislatures, and food.

The Administrative Act 1985 was passed by the Parliament in pursuance of the power exercised as
provided in Article 323A of the Constitution. It empowered the centre to establish three tribunals to

9
execute public affairs quickly and effectively and provide justice to the public authorities. The details
are as follows:

 Centre Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

 State Administrative Tribunal (SAT)

 Joint Administrative Tribunal (JAT)

This Tribunal shall be established by the Central Government
having jurisdiction to deal with the matters of obligation
concerning employees of the Central Government, or of
Centre
Union Territories, or of local or other form of government
a Administrative
under the authority or control of the Government of India, or
Tribunal (CAT)
of any company owned or controlled by the Central
Government.This tribunal consists of a president, a vice-
president and other members.

This Tribunal is established for state employees by the

State Central Government upon receipt of a request to do so from
b Administrative any of the state governments. The President, after consultation
Tribunal (SAT) with the Governor of the State, appointed the Chairman, Vice
Chairman, and Members of the Tribunal.

This Joint Tribunal may require two or more states to exercise

Joint the powers of the administrative tribunal over those states.The
c Administrative President, after consultation with the Governor of the State,
Tribunal (JAT) appointed the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Members of the
Tribunal.

10
 FACTS OF THE CASE

Pursuant to Article 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India the Central Administrative
Tribunal, with five Benches, was established on November 1, 1985. However, even before the
Tribunal had been established, several writ petitions had been filed in various High Courts as well
as the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Article 323- A, on the ground that
it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution as it excludes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Through an interim order in S. P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India4 the Supreme Court, in order
to ensure the functioning of the Tribunal along with sound Constitutional principles, directed
carrying out of certain measures.

When Sampat Kumar’s case was finally heard, these changes had already been incorporated in the
body and text of the Act. The Supreme Court took the view that most of the original grounds of
challenge –which included the challenge to the constitutional validity of Article 323-A – did not
survive and restricted its focus to testing only the validity of the provisions of the act. In the final
decision it was held that though judicial review is the basic feature of the Constitution, the vesting
of the power of judicial review in an alternative Institutional Mechanism, after taking it away from
the High Court, would not be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, so long it was
ensured that the alternative mechanism was an effective and real substitute for the High Court.

Similar questions were raised subsequently in many cases and one of them was L. Chandra Kumar
v. Union of India. In this case after analysing the relevant Constitutional provisions and the
circumstances which led to the decision in Sampat Kumar’s case, the bench reached the
conclusion that:- on account of the divergent view expressed by the Supreme Court in a series of
cases after Sampat Kumar’s case, the resulting situation warranted a fresh look by a larger Bench
over all the issues adjudicated by the Court in Sampat Kumar’s case including the question
whether the Tribunal can at all have an Administrative Member on its bench, if it were to have the
power of even deciding the constitutional validity of a statute or Article 309 rule as decided in J.
B. Chopra v. Union of India5 .The present case under discussion is the very case where the larger
bench looked over all the issues adjudicated by the Court in Sampat Kumar’s case.

11
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the power conferred upon Parliament or State Legislatures, as the case may be,
by sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article 323-A or by sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Article
323-B of the Constitution, totally exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except that of the
Supreme Court under Article 136, in respect of disputes and complaints referred to in clause
(1) of Article 323-A or with regard to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) of
Article 323-B, runs counter to the power of judicial review conferred on the High-Courts
under Articles 226/227 and on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the Tribunals, constituted either under Article 323-A, or under Article 323-B of
the Constitution, possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of a statutory
provision/rule?

3. Whether these Tribunals, as they are functioning at present, can be said to be effective
substitutes for the High-Courts in discharging the power of judicial review? If not, what are
the changes required to make them conform to their founding objectives?

12
 VERDICT OF THE CASE

Issue 1 :- Whether the power conferred upon the Parliament by Article 323-A (2) (d) or upon the
State Legislature by Article 323-B (3) (d) of the Constitution of India, to totally exclude the
jurisdiction of ‘all courts’, except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136, in respect of disputes
and complaints referred to in Article 323-A (1) or with regard to all or any of the matters specified in
Article 323-B (2), runs contrary to the power of judicial review conferred on the High Court u/as
226/227 and on the Supreme Court u/a 32 of the Constitution of India?
In adjudging this issue the Bench made a study of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act
particularly Section 28. It pointed out that although Section 28 was originally enacted in express
terms with Article 323A of the Constitution and the only exception was made in respect to the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 but when the final hearing of Sampat Kumar’s
case was concluded the provision was already amended to save the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution. It also pointed out that as Sampat Kumar case was specifically
related with power of judicial review of the Supreme Court, and as it already had been returned to
the court, the court expressed itself satisfied with the position as it had emerged during the pendency
of Sampat Kumar case and the court did not ventured to address the larger issue of whether Article
323A (2) also required a similar amendment.

The court also found that the main intention behind the Act was to provide for a self-contained, self-
sufficient and exclusive forum of adjudicating all service related matters. But it made it clear that it
was intended to perform a substitution role and not a supplemental role.

Next it ventured in examining post-Sampat Kumar cases and found that those cases did not
specifically addressed the question regarding the power of the Administrative Tribunals in striking
down a statute or provision as unconstitutional. In J. B. Chopra’s case[7] the Division Bench felt that
it would follow as a logical and direct consequence of the judgment in Sampat Kumar’s case. In M.
B. Majumdar v. Union of India[8] the bench held that Administrative Tribunals can be equated with
High courts as regards to its jurisdiction in service matters but not in case of service conditions of the
members of the tribunal. In R. K. Jain v. Union of India[9], which coincidently had the same bench
as in the discussed case, analyzed the relevant provisions, and cases such as Sampat Kumar, Chopra,
Majumdar etc. and found that the Tribunals under Article 323A cannot be substitutes to the High
Court as their performance was not satisfactory and also because they leave the litigants with only

13
one remedy under 136 by the way of appeal to the Supreme Court which is costly affair. It suggested
that an expert body like the Law Commission of India should study the feasibility of providing an
appeal to a two judge Bench of the High Court from a decision of the Tribunals.
The court also took in view the suggestions made by the learned counsels. Mr. Rama Jois and Mr.
Shanti Bhushan urged the court to review the judgment in Sampat Kumar’s case and contended that
Articles 323A (2) (d) and 323B (3) (d) should be declared unconstitutional to the extent they exclude
the jurisdiction of the High Court. Mr. Bhatt, the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. P. P. Rao
and Mr. K. K. Venugopal on the other hand urged the court to uphold the validity of the said
Articles. Mr. A. K. Ganguly cited that the power of judicial review vested on the constitutional
Courts cannot be bestowed on newly created quasi-judicial bodies which are susceptible to executive
influences. Next it went to discuss the other facet of this issue viz. judicial review and the basic
feature of the constitution. After citing various cases like Kesavananda Bharati’s case[10], dissenting
view of Chandrachud J. in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[11], Minority judgment of Bhagwati J.
in Minerava Mills v. Union of India[12] and the view, or rather a revised view, of Chandrachud CJ.
In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India[13], the Court came to the conclusion that
judicial review is indeed a basic feature of the Constitution.
Also the court relied on the view of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of
the Constitution of India regarding Article 25 (corresponding to the present Article 32 of the
Constitution) where he said that this Article is the very soul of the Constitution.

Issue 2 :- Whether the Tribunals constituted either under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the
Constitution, possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or
rule?
In this regard the court cited took help from the American practice regarding judicial review. The
court also found that the definition of judicial review in America and in India are similar and
therefore went on to review the position of judicial review in America and for this relied on the view
of Henry J. Abraham(Henry J. Abraham, The Judicial Process[14], an acclaimed American
Constitutional Law scholar. It found that theoretically every Court in America, no matter how high
or low, had the power of judicial review although it is seldom used. That is there is no blanket
prohibition on the conferment of judicial power upon Courts other than the U. S. Supreme Court.
The court also agreed that if the power of judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution, which
has been described as the heart and soul of the Constitution, can be additionally conferred on any
other court, there is no reason why the same cannot be done in case of the power conferred upon the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However it is must that the jurisdiction of the High

14
Court under Articles 226/227 and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is retained and the
Tribunals function as a supplementary body.

In giving the reason of this view the learned Court pointed out the following points:

In view of the unprecedented increase of litigation it is necessary to provide Tribunals with

supplementary power of judicial review. In this regard the decision in Sampat Kumar’s case was
correct as it adopted the theory of alternative institutional mechanism in such a backdrop of serious
backlog of cases in the High Court.

 It is very necessary for clearing the backlog of pending cases which has assumed a colossal
proportion.
 Although the Tribunals have not performed upto the expectations it would not be satisfactory
to attribute these problems to the very basic principles of its establishment and hold them as
unsound. The reasons for the establishment of the Tribunals still persist and have become
more pronounced in the recent times.
However it held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunals would be subject to the review of the High
Court under Articles 226/227. This would serve two purposes; one it will ensure that frivolous
claims would be filtered out through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal and two, the High
Court will not lose its power of judicial review. Thus the Supreme Court held that the Tribunals
constituted either under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the Constitution, possess the
competence to test the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or rule subject to the review by
the High Court.

Issue 3 :- Whether the Tribunals, as they are functioning at present, can be said to be the effective
substitutes for the High Court in discharging the power of judicial review? If not, what are the
changes required to make them conform to their founding objectives?
The Court throughout the judgment pointed out that the Tribunals are not substitutes of the High
Court but are supplementary. Moreover it suggested the following changes:

 They will function as a supplementary body and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be
subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts.
 The contention that appointment of Administrative members to Administrative tribunals
should be stopped cannot be accepted as a judicious mix of judicial members and those with
grass-root experience would be better suited for the purpose of speedy and efficient discharge
of justice.
15
 To remove the inefficiency of the Tribunals the tribunals should be made subject to the
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
 The Ministry may appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the working of the
tribunals.

The Court held that Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the
extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles
226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 excluded the power of judicial review exercised by the High-Courts in
service matters under Articles 226 and 227; however it did not exclude the judicial review
entirely in as much as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution was kept intact 6.

The Court held that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the “exclusion
of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A
and 323-B would, to the extent that they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts (under
Articles 226 and 227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) would be ultra-vires the
Constitution. The Court said that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under
Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part
of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. The Court held that there was no
Constitutional prohibition against administrative tribunals in performing a supplemental as
opposed to a substitutional role; that is in exercising their powers such tribunals cannot act
as substitutes for High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Their decisions will be subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the respective High-
Courts i.e. all decisions of these tribunals (tribunals created under Articles 323-A and 323-
B of the Constitution of India) will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the
High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned tribunal falls. Administrative Tribunals
under Article 323-A could examine the constitutional validity of various statutes or rules.
However, there will be one exception to this rule7 i.e. the administrative tribunals would not
be competent to examine the validity of the statute under which they are created 8. In such
cases, the appropriate High Court would have to be approached directly9. Barring cases
where the constitutionality of the parent Act is challenged, all questions regarding services
must be raised only before an administrative tribunal, and writ would lie against an
16
administrative tribunal’s decision to a High Court having jurisdiction over it. An appeal
would also lie to the High Court from a tribunal’s decision ; however this direction was to
apply to decisions rendered after the decision in this case L.Chandra Kumar v. UOI10

From a decision of High Court’s Division Bench, an appeal could be preferred under Article
136 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court of India11. Administrative Tribunals need not
consist only of members from the judicial stream but could also include members from
administrative stream, because a tribunal consisting of such mixed composition would be
able to bring varied experience to bear on the service matters that comes to it for
adjudication. An administrative tribunal may not be subject to the power of superintendence
of a High Court under Article 227, but the tribunals could work under the supervision of a
nodal government-department, which would preferably be the Ministry of Law. The Court
expressed a hope that the ministry would set up an independent nodal agency for overseeing
the work of tribunals.

Lastly, the Court upheld Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as valid
and constitutional and held that Sections 5(2) and 5(6) of the Act must operate together and
must be harmoniously construed i.e. where a question involving the interpretation of a
statutory provision or rule in relation to the Constitution arises for consideration of a single
Member Bench of the Administrative Tribunal, the proviso to section 5(6) will
automatically apply and the Chairman or the Member concerned shall refer the matter to a
Bench consisting of at least two Members, one of whom must be a Judicial Member. This
will ensure that questions involving the vires of a statutory provision or rule will never arise
for adjudication before a single Member Bench or a Bench, which does not consist of a
Judicial Member. So construed, Section 5(6) can no longer be susceptible to the charges of
unconstitutionality.

17
 OBSERVATION BY THE BIGGER BENCH

 The power of judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution and
therefore the Jurisdiction given on High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and on
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure
of the Constitution.
 For securing independence of judiciary, the judges of Superior Courts are entrusted
with the power of judicial review. Though the Parliament is empowered to amend
the Constitution, the power of Amendment cannot be exercised so as to damage the
essential feature of the Constitution or to destroy it’s basic structure.
 The High Courts and the Supreme Court are entrusted with the task of upholding the
Constitution (i.e., furthering the ends of the Constitution) and with a view to
achieving that end, they need to interpret the Constitution.

18
 RATIO DECENDI

 Power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts and the Supreme
Court under Articles 226 and 32 respectively is the basic structure of the Constitution.
 Power of judicial superintendence over decisions of all courts and Tribunals within their
jurisdiction is the basic structure of the Constitution
 Judicial review of legislative action in exercise of power by subordinate judiciary or
Tribunals created under ordinary legislation cannot be to the exclusion of the High Courts
and the Supreme Court. However they can perform supplemental – as opposed to
substitutional – role in this respect.
 Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B have the power to test vires of
subordinate legislation except vires of their parent statutes. All its decisions would be subject
to scrutiny before Division Bench of their respective High Courts under Articles 226/227. No
appeal would lie directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136. The said direction would
operative prospectively.
 Appointment of Administrative members need not be stopped.
 Till a wholly independent body is set for the purpose of overseeing the working of the
Tribunals, all such Tribunals will be under single nodal ministry whose members would be
appropriately be a Ministry of Law.

19
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

In pursuance of the power given to it by Article 323A(1) of the Constitution, the Parliament
enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Pursuant to the provisions of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central Administrative Tribunal comprising of five
Benches was established on November 1, 1985. However, even before CAT had been
established, many writ petitions had been filed in numerous High Courts as well as the
Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Article 323A and additionally the
provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The exclusion of judicial review
under Articles 226, 227 and 32 was questioned as violating the fundamental structure of the
Constitution in S.P. Sampat Kumar vs. Union of India.

In S.P. Sampat Kumar vs. UOI12 , in the judgment the Court command that Section 28 that
excludes jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 isn’t unconstitutional. The
Court dominated that this section does not totally bar judicial review. It also said that
Administrative Tribunals under the 1985 Act are substitutes of High Courts and can manage
all services matters even involving Articles 14, 15 and 16. It also suggested for changing
the qualifications of Chairman of the tribunal.

In J.B. Chopra and Ors. vs. UOI13 a division bench of the Supreme Court held that “the
Administrative Tribunals being a substitute power of the High Court had the required
jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes regarding service matters
as well as the power to manage all questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or
otherwise of such laws as violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution”.

In M.B. Majumdar vs. UOI14 , the court when analysing the text of Article 323A of the
Constitution, the provisions of the impugned Act and also the decision in Sampat Kumar
case, rejected the contention that the tribunals were the equals of the High Courts in respect
of their service conditions.

In R.K. Jain vs. UOI15 , Justice Ramaswamy analysed the relevant constitutional provisions,
the decision in Sampat Kumar, J.B. Chopra and M.B. Majumdar and held that the tribunals
created under Articles 323A and Article 323B couldn’t be held to be substitutes of High
Courts for the aim of exercising Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

In Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. UOI16 , the Supreme Court had to handle the question of
whether or not a dispute before the CAT may be determined by a Single Administrative
20
Member? The Court based it decision on Section 5(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 and held that a Bench of a Tribunal under the Act ought to consists of a Judicial
Member and an Administrative Member; as also taking the required clue from the Sampat
Kumar case, the Court held that under the Scheme of the impugned Act, all cases ought to
be heard by a Bench of two members ( one Administrative and one Judicial).

In L. Chandra Kumar vs. UOI17 , a division bench of the Supreme Court expressed the
view that the decision rendered by the Constitutional Bench of five Judges in Sampat Kumar
case, required to be “comprehensively reconsidered”, and a “fresh look by a bigger bench
over all the problems adjudicated in Sampat Kumar case was necessary”. Considering the
opinion of the Division Bench, the matter was placed before a bigger Bench of seven judges.

21
 CONCLUSION
It is a well-known fact after the judgment was given in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala18 (1973) case that the basic structure of the Indian Constitution cannot be violated
and all the legislation, acts, and regulations violating it will be considered null and void. It
is settled provision that the High courts are the constitutional courts and ousting its
jurisdiction and excluding its power of judicial review is against the doctrine of the basic
structure. If a new quasi-judicial body is established by the executive for speedy justice of
some matters to reduce the burden on the High Courts and the Supreme Court then the
decision should be subject to judicial review as even the judicial body’s decision is subjected
to judicial review. However, it is established by the zeal of providing time-effective and
cost-effective justice but nothing can be said about the quality of justice dispensed by it, so
the decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, is highly remarkable considering the
sacrosanct Constitutional provisions.

“The Constitution was written very precisely to restrain the power of the government and
to protect the liberties of each and every one of us.”- Dr Ron Paul

22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. PANDEY J.N.(Dr.); Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 55th Edition, 2018.

2. Johari Shatakshi ; Lectures on Constitutional Law,1st Edition,2016.

3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/

4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/l-chandra-kumar-v-union-india-re-examination/

5. http://lawtimesjournal.in/l-chandra-kumar-vs-union-of-india/

23