Judgments

L. CHANDRA KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India  AIR (1997) SC 1125 held that power of judicial review of High Court under Article 226 and of Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of  basic structure of the Constitution and can not be excluded. The Supreme Court also held that power of superintendence of High Court over subordinate Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction is also part of basic structure.

REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION BENCH

The Supreme Court in S. P. Sampath Kumar  Vs. Union of India  (1987) 1 SCC 124 has taken a view that power of judicial review need not be exercised by regular courts only and same can be exercised by equally efficacious alternative mechanism. Supreme Court in J. B. Chopra vs Union of India AIR (1987) SC 357 relying on Sampath Kumar held that Tribunals can even adjudicate vires of Act of Parliament or State Legislature.

Discordant note was struck in M. B. Majumdar Vs. Union of India  AIR (1990) SC 2260  wherein it was observed that Administrative Tribunals cannot be equated with High Court in all respects. In State of Orissa vs Bhagwan Sarangi (SLP (C) No 2129 /91), the Supreme Court held that Tribunal established under the Act is nonetheless a Tribunal and it cannot sidetrack a decision of the concerned High Court.

In light of post -Sampath Kumar developments the matter was referred to a larger bench for a fresh view.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court determined the following issues in this matter.

(i)  Whether exclusion of jurisdiction of  all courts under Article 323A and 323 B except jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 runs counter to jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226/227 and Supreme Court under Article 32 ?

The Supreme Court noted that power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 and Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral part of constitutional scheme.  The same has been recognized by Supreme Court in its various judgments including Kesavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala  AIR 1973 SC 1461, Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs Raj Narayan (1975) 3 SCR 854, Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India  (1981) 1 SCR 206 etc.

Constitution not only confers powers on the High Court and Supreme Court to strike down laws but also ensures independence of judiciary through elaborate provisions dealing with tenure, salaries, allowance etc. Constitutional safeguards which are available to judges of High Court and Supreme Court are not available to subordinate judiciary or to those who man subordinate judiciary. As such Tribunals cannot be substitute for High Court or Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that power of judicial review vested in High Court under Article 226/227   and Supreme Court  under Article 32 is part of basic structure and ordinarily cannot be ousted. The Supreme Court also held that power vested in High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over all courts and Tribunal within their respective jurisdictions are also part of basic structure of the Constitution.

(ii) Whether Tribunals constituted under Article 123A and 123 B possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provision/rule  ?

The Supreme Court held that tribunals constituted under Article 123 A and Article 123 B has competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions/rules. The Supreme Court observed that if such a view is adopted then litigants will raise frivolous constitutional issues to approach High Courts. Further in these specialized branches, issues arise which involve interpretation of Article 14, 15 and 16.

(iii) Whether tribunals are effective substitutes for High Courts ?

Although Tribunnals are empowered to test statutory provisions, they are not substitutes for High Court or Supreme Court. The Tribunal cannot entertain questions regarding vires of the parent statute on the principle that the Tribunal which is a creature of statute cannot declare the very act unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court noted that one of the reasons for inefficiency of tribunals are lack of authority charged with supervising and fulfilling administrative requirements. The Supreme Court suggested that till an independent body is created for supervision and administration of Tribunals, Ministry of Law may function as nodal ministry for the same.

_____________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *