CHANDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 3 SCC 261

CHANDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 3 SCC 261

FACTS

The Central Administrative Tribunal, established on November 1, 1985, as per Article 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India, initially had five Benches. Prior to its establishment, several writ petitions were filed in various High Courts and the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Article 323A.

The main argument was that it contradicted the essence of the Constitution by excluding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226. In the interim order of S. P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court directed specific measures to ensure the Tribunal's functioning in line with Constitutional principles. By the time Sampat Kumar's case was finally heard, these changes had been incorporated into the Act. The Supreme Court concluded that many of the initial grounds of challenge, including the validity of Article 323-A, were no longer relevant.

 The focus shifted to examining the provisions of the act. The final decision emphasized that while judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, reassigning the power of judicial review to an alternative Institutional Mechanism, as long as it effectively replaced the High Court, did not violate the Constitution's basic structure. Subsequently, similar questions arose in cases such as L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

The bench in this case, after thorough analysis, determined that due to differing opinions expressed by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases after Sampat Kumar's case, a bigger Bench should review all of the issues addressed in that decision. This included the question of whether the Tribunal could have an Administrative Member on its bench and the power to decide the constitutional validity of a statute or Article 309 rule, as decided in J. B. Chopra v. Union of India. The present case under discussion is the very instance where the larger bench reevaluated all the issues addressed in Sampat Kumar's case.

 

 

ISSUES:

1. Does the power granted to Parliament by Article 323-A (2) (d) or to the State Legislature by Article 323 B (3) (d) of the Constitution of India, to completely exclude the jurisdiction of 'all courts' except the Supreme Court under Article 136, stand constitutionally valid?
2. Do the Tribunals established under either Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution have the authority to assess the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or rule?
3. Whether the Tribunals can as they presently function, be considered effective substitutes for the High Court in exercising the power of judicial review? If not, what modifications are necessary to align them with their intended objectives?

 

JUDGMENT-

Tribunals possess the competence to adjudicate cases involving challenges to the validity of statutory provisions. However, it is important to note that Tribunals do not serve as replacements for the Supreme Court or High Courts; rather, their functions are supplementary. The decisions made by Tribunals are subject to examination by a division bench of the High Court.

Additionally, Tribunals hold the authority to assess the legality of subordinate legislations and rules, with the exception of those derived from the parent statute. Litigants, in cases where they challenge the validity of statutory legislations (with the exception mentioned), will not directly approach the High Court. Instead, they will need to go through the jurisdiction of the relevant tribunal.

 The Supreme Court rejected the petition and affirmed the constitutionality of the provisions permitting the creation of tribunals as outlined in the Advocates Act of 1961. The Court determined that the establishment of these tribunals did not infringe upon the independence of the judiciary or contravene the doctrine of separation of powers.