Chandrakumar v UOI

Name – Sarvesh Hate

Enrolment Number – A70621521011
Subject – Administrative Law
Semester 7
Submitted to Sameeksha Pandey

Overview of L. Chandra Vs Union of India

The L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India case emerged from constitutional questions
raised on the constitutional provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, of the year
1985 especially Articles, 323A & 323B of Constitution of India. That is why the
provisions under which the petitioner, L. Chandra Kumar, would claim that all issues
of service put the High Court and Supreme Court jurisdiction in check to principle of
judicial review. In case, the court had to examine whether it was open to exclude the
higher judiciary’s discretion to exercise judicial review through administrative
tribunals and whether such exclusion was permissible under the Constitution’s basic
architecture. Finally, the court concluded that although the administrative tribunals
were constitutional, the latter could not usurp the powers of the High Court and
Supreme Court in terms of judging the administrative action as ultra vires which again
reestablished judiciary’s role in administrative process control.

Background
The genesis of the case lies in the constitutional amendments introduced by the 42nd
Amendment in 1976, which inserted Articles 323A and 323B into the Indian
Constitution. These articles aimed to establish administrative tribunals for
adjudicating service matters, thereby ostensibly reducing the burden on High Courts.
However, this also raised concerns regarding the exclusion of High Courts'
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, which are essential for judicial review. Prior
to Chandra Kumar, the Supreme Court had addressed similar issues in Sampat
Kumar Vs Union of India (1987), where it upheld the establishment of tribunals but
suggested that they should not completely replace judicial review by High Courts. The
ruling in Chandra Kumar sought to clarify and expand upon these earlier findings.
Critical Analysis of L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India
The Judgement in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India (1997) is a
landmark decision of the Supreme Court relating to judicial review of administrative
tribunals. In the following analysis, the background about the case, the issues
involved, and judgement done as well as implications of the case shall be explained.

Key Issues
1. Exclusion of High Court Jurisdiction: The primary issue was whether
Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d), which aimed to exclude High Courts'
jurisdiction in service matters, violated the basic structure doctrine of judicial
review.
2. Competence of Tribunals: The court needed to determine if tribunals had the
authority to assess the constitutional validity of statutory provisions.
3. Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The court had to re-etymologise the
continued legitimacy of its power of judicial review as a core, and an
unamendable, part of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The basic structure doctrine is one of the principal pillars of the constitutional law of
India that calls some of the characteristics of the constitution unamendable by the
parliament. This doctrine can be said to have evolved as one of the important
constituents of the judicial review in India, the case in point being the L Chandra
Kumar etc. Union of India case 1997.

Judgment
In a decision by Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi, the Supreme Court ruled that:
 Judicial Review is Fundamental: The court asserted that judicial review is a
basic feature of the Constitution, and any attempt to exclude it through
legislative amendments is unconstitutional 1 4. This was based on history and
understanding of the Constitution with reference to the opinion of the father of
 the Constitution of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and on Article 32 as being
referred to as ‘the soul’ of the Constitution. 3.
 Tribunals as Supplementary Bodies: The judgment made it clear that even
though the tribunals could help in dealing with the existing loads they cannot
take the place of High Courts to exercise the judicial control2 5. The court
emphasized that decisions made by tribunals would still be subject to scrutiny
by High Courts under Article 226.
 Effective Mechanism for Judicial Review: For the court, there has been a rise
in litigation, but this necessitated development of other mechanisms, which
should not encroach upon traditional jurisdictions of the judiciary4 5. It realised
that although tribunals can deal with disparate concerns satisfactorily, they
must function under the supervision of High Courts.

Influence on Future Judgements

Reaffirmation of Judicial Review: The Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra
Kumar case concretised the proposition that judicial review is a constitutional
fundamental and cannot be taken away by legislation. This has been a very strong line
of attack to dispar with any such future attempts with some measure of constitutional
legitimacy in seeking to restrict judicial review of administrative bodies.
Clarification of Tribunal Powers: In this case, the court was very clear in pointing
out that although the administrative tribunals have jurisdiction to accustom the
constitutionality of subordinate legislation, they have no intention of displacing the
High courts or the Supreme court routinely exercising their power of judicial review.
This has been important especially in other cases related to jurisdiction and powers of
the tribunals providing a legal positivist approach to supporting the constitutional
supersedes the power of the tribunals.
Guidance for Legislative Amendments: The judgment helps the lawmakers when
making laws concerning administrative tribunals since the judgment is a reference
point. High Court’s jurisdiction attempts to exclude or limit for Tribunals will be
asked based on this ruling since the dignified structure of the constitution was
violated.
Impact on Subsequent Cases: I agree with the principles that have been set out by
the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar and other subsequent cases which
entrenched the judiciary in defending the constitutional provisions. For example, in
contractual dispute where there is controversy as to the decisions of tribunals, the
courts have relied significantly on this case in the course of determining the issue of
judicial review.
Encouragement for Litigants: The judgment has benefited litigants in as much as
they can always go on a higher court and claim their rights have been violated by the
tribunals. This has made people to have more confidence when they are seeking
justice on actions by administration.

Reasoning
The court right in focusing on retaining original jurisdiction as a core feature;
however, it can be suggested that this might cause excessive congestion of the High
Court calendars because of additional appeals against the tribunal’s rulings.
There are certain kinds of reasons underpinning the treatment of judicial review as
beyond question that are at least prima facie consonant with democracy, but these may
well have implications for thinking about how such matters should be administered.

Implications
The ruling in L. Chandra Kumar has far-reaching implications for administrative law
in India:
 Reinforcement of Judicial Supremacy: In affirming the continued place of High
Courts in exercising Judicial review the judgment re-established their exact role of
protecting constitutional rights against executive tyranny.
Guidance for Future Legislative Actions: The decision serves as a precedent for
future legislative attempts to establish alternative dispute resolution mechanisms,
ensuring they align with constitutional mandates regarding judicial oversight 1 2.
Impact on Administrative Tribunals: The judgment prompted a revaluation of
how administrative tribunals function within India's legal framework, emphasizing
their role as adjuncts rather than replacements for traditional courts 34.

Recommendation for Future Reforms

Streamlining Processes: The development of a clearer framework for the processes
of the tribunal may increase the efficacy of these operations while simultaneously
reconstructing compliance with the rules of natural justice.
Strengthening Tribunal Independence: This implies that reforms can be far
enhanced by improving on the independence of the tribunal members through the
process of appointment.
Expanding ADR Mechanisms: Exploring possibility of using other methods of
resolving disputes within the administrative law system could go along-way in cutting
down the amount of litigation whilst giving an opportunity for timely delivery to the
parties involved.

Conclusion
The L. Chandra Kumar case is one of the most important Judgment in the history of
Indian jurisprudence which highlighted the need for of having a proper equilibrium
between the requisites of efficient administration and the need for effective legal
honour and control. It asserts that although, there could be needs for constant reforms
in response to inevitably trending litigation difficulties, reforms should not be
implemented in a way that erodes them from their constitutional basics including
judicial non-erasability. Even today this case remains relevant in the concerned nation
and forms an appreciable part of the deliberations in administrative law and
governance in India.