L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125

[Administrative Tribunals]

FACTS:

The numerous petitions and appeals constituting this batch of matters arose from different High Court decisions and challenged several statutory provisions. The cases were grouped together as they involved broad issues concerning the validity of the power conferred on Parliament/State Legislatures to create tribunals that totally excluded the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the power conferred by Article 323A(2)(d) or Article 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, which totally excludes the jurisdiction of 'all courts' (except the Supreme Court under Article 136), 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 under Article 323A or Article 323B, 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 changes are required?

CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND

The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 affected drastic changes, severely restricting and curtailing the power of judicial review of High Courts and the Supreme Court, which was held to be a part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

The Amendment made two key changes regarding administrative tribunals:

1. It took away the power of superintendence of High Courts over administrative tribunals which they possessed under Article 227.

2. It inserted Part XIV-A (Articles 323-A and 323-B), enabling Parliament to constitute administrative tribunals and allowing for the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136.

The 42nd Amendment did not, by itself, take away the jurisdiction but enabled the legislatures to make laws to set up such tribunals and exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 or Article 227. The L. Chandra Kumar case substantially changed this legal position.

CONTENTIONS:

1. It was contended that the Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislation is questioned, and they should restrict themselves to matters where constitutional issues are not raised.

2. It was argued that the justice dispensed by Tribunals was often unsatisfactory, and the remedy of a Special Leave Appeal under Article 136 was too costly and inaccessible, leading to the Supreme Court docket being crowded with relatively trivial challenges.

RATIONALE:

1. The Court noted that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (parent statute for CAT) originally barred the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136, as per Article 323A(2)(d). While a later amendment saved Article 32 (Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction), the Court held that the power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. Defining the Jurisdiction of Tribunals:

   • The Court held that Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of subordinate legislations and rules are questioned.

   • Their function is supplementary to the High Courts and Supreme Court.

   • All decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts under Articles 226/227.

   • Exception: Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes (the settled principle being that a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act unconstitutional). In such cases, the High Court may be approached directly.

   • Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in their areas of law. Litigants cannot directly approach the High Courts (except for challenging the parent statute).

3. Suggestions for Efficiency: To improve the functioning of Tribunals, the Court suggested that all such bodies should be, as far as possible, under a single nodal Ministry, preferably the Ministry of Law, which would oversee their working and ensure the independence of their members.

HELD:

The Court held that Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, 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.

• The decisions of the Administrative Tribunals are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts (Division Bench) under Articles 226 and 227.

• Tribunals created under Article 323B also have the power of Judicial review of legislative action (subordinate legislation).

• To ensure quality adjudication, where a question involving the vires of a statutory provision or rule arises before a single Member Bench of the Administrative Tribunal, the matter must be automatically referred to a Bench consisting of at least two Members, one of whom must be a Judicial Member.

COMMENTARY:

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court overruled the previous Sampath Kumar judgment and upheld the contention that the jurisdiction conferred on High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was “a part of inviolable basic structure and essential attribute” which could not be curtailed or truncated by Parliament. The legal position after Chandra Kumar is that a party aggrieved by a decision of a tribunal must invoke the original jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Only thereafter, a person aggrieved may approach the Supreme Court under Article 136. - Lectures On Administrative Law