L.

CHANDRA KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA,

AIR 1997

Citation AIR 1961 SC 1125

Date of Judgment 18/03/1997
Court Supreme Court of India
Appellant L.Chandra Kumar
Respondent Union of India
Bench A.M. Ahmadi CJI, M.M. Punchhi, K.
Ramaswamy, S.P. Bharucha, S. Saghir
Case Type/ Issue Civil Nature

FACTS OF CASE

The matter of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others1 was brought to the Supreme
Court after the court considered a number of special leave applications, civil appeals, and
writ petitions. These cases had a number of distinct legal challenges that were merged to be
resolved.
According to Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Indian Constitution, the Central Administrative
Tribunal, which comprises five Benches, was established on November 1, 19852. The validity
of Article 323-A2, however, had previously been the subject of numerous writ petitions.
presented before the Tribunal was even established and in several High Courts. The defence
in the case was that it violates the Constitution's letter because it restricts the Supreme
Court's and the High Court's authority under Articles 32 and 226.

ISSUE

Identify whether the Constitution’s authority granted to Parliament under Article 323A (2)
(d) or to State Legislatures under Article 323B (3) (d) to totally exclude the jurisdiction of all
courts other than the Supreme Court (under Article 136) in respect of topics referred
Conflict with the judicial review authority conferred to the Supreme Court by Article 32, the
High Courts by Articles 226 and 226, or both by Article 323A (1) or 323B (2). Whether or
whether it is within the purview of the tribunals created in accordance with Articles 323A or
323B to judge whether or not legislative norms or provisions are constitutional. Whether
these tribunals, in their current function, may be claimed to be an effective substitute for
High Courts in exercising the judicial review power.

Arguments

Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution were up for debate in the matter of L.
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others due to their constitutional validity. The principal
concerns raised were:
The ability granted to Parliament by Article 323A (2) (d) or State Legislature by Article 323B
(3) (d) of the Constitution to completely exclude the jurisdiction of “all courts,” except for
the Supreme Court under Article 136, with regard to disputes and complaints mentioned in
Clause (1) of Article 323A or with regard to all or any of the matters mentioned in Clause (2)
of Article 323B conflicts with the judicial review authority granted to the High Courts.
Dispute Tribunals,
which are eligible to evaluate the constitutionality of a statutory provision or rule are those
that were established in compliance with either Article 323A or Article 323B of the
Constitution. It may be argued that these Tribunals, in their current capacity, constitute a
viable alternative to the High Courts for the purposes of exercising the judicial review
jurisdiction.
The complaint was filed in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Sampath Kumar
case, which determined that it was not against the fundamental precepts of the constitution
to grant an alternative mechanism the right to review the High Court. The cases for a review
of the Sampath Kumar decision were collected together to take into account these broad
considerations. The result of this case has significantly impacted India's high courts
authority.

JUDGEMENT

The judgement in the case L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others was handed out
on March 18, 19971. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Courts’ and the Supreme
Court’s capacity to review legislative action under Articles 226 and 227 and Article 32 Is a
fundamental and essential component of the Constitution.
According to the Court, the Tribunals are qualified to hear cases where the Constitution’s
Articles 226 and 227 limit the High Courts’ ability to hear them. The High Courts, however,
have the power to revisit this exclusion. The High Courts cannot be replaced by these
Tribunals, according to the Court.
The High Courts’ power to review a law’s constitutionality cannot ever be restricted or
eliminated, the Court further ruled12. Legislative disputes cannot be decided by
Constitutional Tribunals formed under Article 323A or Article 323B.

Rules and provisions are constitutional. The judgement holds that the Tribunals have the
power to hear cases where the Constitution’s Articles 226 and 227 limit the High Courts’
ability to hear them. The High Courts, however, have the power to revisit this exclusion. The
High Court cannot be replaced by these Tribunals, according to the Court. The decision has
significantly impacted India’s high courts’ authority and the way tribunals
Operate.

Abdul Rehman
Virtual Inter at Pradeep rai office