Case Title: L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India.

1997
Introduction: Judicial review in India is the power of the judiciary to assess the constitutionality
of laws and government actions. It is derived from Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to issue writs for enforcing fundamental
rights. Judicial review covers legislative, executive, and administrative actions, ensuring they
comply with the Constitution. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the doctrine of basic structure
further enhance the scope of judicial review. It acts as a vital check on government powers,
upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights.
In 1958, the Law Commission recommended the establishment of tribunals for service-related
disputes, and in 1976, the Parliament enacted the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act,
introducing Articles 323A and 323B. These articles authorized the creation of tribunals for
administrative matters. However, concerns arose about their constitutionality, especially
regarding potential conflicts with the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The
key question was whether the judicial oversight granted to the High Court (under Articles
226/227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) was an integral part of the Constitution's
fundamental structure. This issue was explored in cases like Kesavananda Bharati. The landmark
case Chandra Kumar v. Union of India was held to determine the legality of Articles 323A and
323B, which dealt with the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service affairs and played a
crucial role in examining the position of the Administrative Tribunal/Court in relation to judicial
oversight and the fundamental structure of the Constitution.
Facts of the Case1: The constitutional amendment (42nd) in 1976 introduced Articles 323A and
323B. Under Article 323A(1), Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
establishing the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before its formation, several writ petitions
challenged the validity of Article 323A, arguing that it undermines judicial review, a
fundamental aspect of the constitution. prior to its establishment, petitions challenging the
constitutional validity of specific clauses. The contention was that these provisions and the
Administrative Tribunal Act contradicted the constitutional spirit by excluding the jurisdiction of
the High Court (Article 226/227) and the Supreme Court (Article 32) but in the Sampat Kumar
case, the Supreme Court ruled that delegating the power of judicial review to an alternative
mechanism doesn't violate the basic structure of the constitution. The court reasoned that as long
as the Supreme Court retains its power, and the alternative mechanism is effective, it doesn't
contradict the constitution's core principles. The current case involves reconsidering aspects of
the Sampat Kumar decision, addressing broader issues arising from these challenges.
Legal Issues and Questions Raised:
1. Whether the power conferred upon parliament by article 323 A (2) (d) or state legislature
by 323 B (3) (d) of the Constitution of lndia, to totally exclude jurisdiction of all courts
except that of supreme court (under art. 136) in respect of matters referred in 323 A (1) or
323 B (2), runs counter to power of judicial review conferred on High courts under article
226/221 and supreme court under article 32 of Constitution of lndia?
1. https://lawtimesjournal.in/l-chandra-kumar-vs-union-of-india/
 2. Whether the tribunals constituted under article 323 A or 323 B possess the competence to
test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions/rules?

3. Whether these tribunals, as their present function, can be said to be effective substitute
for High courts in discharging the power of judicial review? If not, what are the changes
required to move them conform to their founding objectives.

Arguments of the Parties:2

The petitioner:
 The argument presented by the petitioner emphasizes that a single-member bench of the
Tribunal is not a suitable substitute for the High Court. It contends that the exclusion of
jurisdiction from High Courts and the Supreme Court is unconstitutional, referencing the
Kesavananda Bharati case, which held that only constitutional courts possess the power
of judicial review over legislative action.
 The assertion is made that Parliament cannot confer the power to exclude the jurisdiction
of the High Court, as this would infringe upon the constitutional order. The decision in
the Sampat Kumar case, which relied on the effectiveness of tribunals, is criticized as
factually and legally incorrect.
 Comparisons between High Courts and tribunals are drawn, highlighting differences in
power, qualifications for appointments, constitutional protection of jurisdiction, and the
ability to be abolished by repealing the parent statute in the case of tribunals. Financial
dependence on state funds for High Courts versus reliance on appropriate government
funds for tribunals is noted.
 The practical challenges faced by advocates in representing before tribunals are
highlighted. The argument suggests that the 42nd amendment aimed to vest constitutional
jurisdiction in entities controlled by the executive. In the UOI v. Pratibha Bannerjea case,
the Supreme Court's analysis of the special constitutional status of High Court judges is
referenced to underscore the distinction between High Courts with established traditions
and newly created Tribunals.
Ultimately, the argument opposes bestowing the power to interpret constitutional provisions on
quasi-judicial bodies susceptible to executive influences.
The Respondents: The response presented by the respondent parties are:
 Jurisdiction under article 32 was not indented to be affected.
 Articles 323 A and 323B do not seek to exclude supervisory jurisdiction of High courts
over all tribunals situated within their territorial jurisdiction.
2. https://lawtimesjournal.in/l-chandra-kumar-vs-union-of-india/
  Pendency in High courts is a problem. So should remedied rather striking down.
 Kesavananda Bharati case shows inherent distinction between individual provisions and
basic features of constitution separation of power is one of the banc features. It is also
applicable in judicial review.
 Even in case of violation of fundamental rights parties required to approach High courts
(226/227) rather supreme court (32). Service masters, being comparatively lesser
significant can be transferred to tribunals on some reason.
 By Order XXVII A, Rule 1A ordinary civil courts are empowered to adjudicate upon
questions of statutory rules and instruments.
 The doctrine of reading down is applicable HCs would continue jurisdiction to decide
vires of act even service disputes, perform supervisory role ever tribunals.
 In the absence of any specific constitutional prohibition, Parliament and state Legislature
have legislative power to effect changes in original jurisdiction of high court and supreme
court.
 To uphold the validity of the impugned constitutional provisions and to allow such
Tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
 The theory enunciated in Sampath Kumar’s case is based on sound considerations and
does not require any reconsideration.
All in all, the creation of an alternative mechanisms is not a violation of the basic structure as
long as it is efficacious as courts. So, to ensure members of tribunal have the security of tenure
for securing independence.
Court's Analysis and Decision:3
 The court analyzed and examined the constitutional validity of Articles 323-A (2) (d) and
323-B (3) (d), which empower Parliament and State Legislatures to exclude the
jurisdiction of all courts, except the Supreme Court under Article 136, in matters
specified in Articles 323-A (1) and 323-B (2). The central question was whether this
power contradicts the power of judicial review conferred on High Courts under Articles
226/227 and on the Supreme Court under Article 32.
 The court initially referred to the Administrative Tribunals Act, emphasizing its objective
to provide a comprehensive and exclusive forum for adjudicating service-related matters,
intending to perform a substitutional role rather than a supplemental one.
 In examining post-Sampat Kumar cases, the court observed that the cases did not
specifically address whether Administrative Tribunals had the power to strike down a
statute as unconstitutional. It noted that the cases highlighted dissatisfaction with the
performance of tribunals, suggesting that an expert body like the Law Commission
should study the feasibility of allowing appeals to a two-judge Bench of the High Court
from tribunal decisions.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152518/
3.
  The court considered the arguments presented by both sides. Some argued for declaring
Articles 323-A (2) (d) and 323-B (3) (d) unconstitutional to the extent they exclude High
Court jurisdiction, while others urged the court to uphold the validity of these articles.
 The court delved into the issue of judicial review and its status as a basic feature of the
Constitution. It cited various cases, including Kesavananda Bharati’s case, the dissenting
view of Chandrachud J. in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the minority judgment of
Bhagwati J. in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, and the revised view of Chandrachud CJ.
in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India. The court concluded that
judicial review is indeed a basic feature of the Constitution.
 The court also relied on Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's statement during the drafting of the
Constitution, where he referred to Article 25 (corresponding to the present Article 32) as
the "very soul of the Constitution." This underscores the significance of the power of
judicial review in upholding constitutional values and ensuring the proper functioning of
the constitutional structure.
 the court drew insights from American practice on judicial review, noting similarities in
definitions between the U.S. and India.
 The theoretical power of judicial review exists in every American court, although rarely
used, without a blanket prohibition on conferring such power on courts other than the
U.S. Supreme Court.
 The court argued that if Article 32's power of judicial review can be conferred on another
court, the same can be done for the High Court under Article 226, as long as the
jurisdiction of both the High Court and the Supreme Court is retained, with tribunals
acting as supplementary bodies.
 The court emphasized the need for tribunals to have supplementary judicial review
powers due to the overwhelming backlog of cases in the High Courts.
 Tribunals, though not meeting expectations, are not fundamentally flawed. They remain
necessary, and their jurisdiction should be subject to High Court review under Articles
226/227.
 The court recommended changes: tribunals functioning as supplementary bodies,
decisions subject to High Court scrutiny, a judicious mix of judicial and administrative
members, and oversight by an independent supervisory body.
Judgement of the Case:4 The central theme of the entire decision emphasizes that Tribunals
cannot replace the constitutional judicial review power of High Courts but will serve as
supplementary entities. Articles 32 and 226 grant judicial review power to the Supreme Court
and High Courts, respectively, constituting a core constitutional framework. Tribunals are
subject to supervision by the Supreme Court and High Courts, reinforcing the constitutional
framework. It also includes that the

https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-study-l-chandra-kumar-v-union-india/
4.
  High Courts and the Supreme Court cannot be excluded from judicial review, even when
exercised by subordinate judges or Tribunals under ordinary legislation. Instead, they can
play a supportive role, not a substitute.
 The appointment of administrative members to Tribunals is not required to cease.
 Until an independent body is established, Tribunals should remain under the oversight of
a single nodal ministry, preferably named the Ministry of Law. Tribunals under Articles
323A and 323B have authority over subordinate legislation but cannot review the legality
of their parent laws. Their decisions will be subject to review by Division Benches of
respective High Courts under Articles 226/227, with no direct appeal to the Supreme
Court, applied prospectively.
The decision of the Supreme court allowing tribunals (under Article 323 A&B) to function
supplementary and parties to challenge decisions of tribunals before a division bench of the high
court is a positive resolution as judicial review is basic structure of our constitution and it
provides speedy trial to common people.