ASSIGNMENT

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL: AN ANALYSIS WITH REFERENCE TO DECIDED CASES.

SUBMITTED TO- Dr CHANDRIKA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW, H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED BY-

SAUMYA RAJPAL

2ND YEAR BBA LLB

1120212262
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 3
DECLARATION BY CANDIDIATE ........................................................................................ 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 5
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS .......................................................................................... 6
GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS .................................................................. 8
JUDICIAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 10
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ................................................. 12
S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA .................................................................. 14
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA .................................................................... 17
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 20

2
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of the assignment required the assistance and guidance of many people and I
fortunately received them in abundance. Mere words will fall short to extend my thankfulness
to those without which the fruition of the project would not have been possible, their dedication,
sincerity, trust and helping me by providing all necessary information and advice were essential
for the completion of the project and I would thank them for their guidance and assistance all
along.

I, Saumya Rajpal would firstly like to thank my university, Himachal Pradesh National Law
University for endowing their trust and faith in me by giving me the opportunity of doing such
an interesting project and providing all necessary help and guidelines.

I would also like to extend my thanks to my project guide and mentor Dr. Chandrika who
helped me by giving valuable insights into the problem and helping me with all necessary
information and guiding me through the project.

Also, I would like to thank my family and friends for their kind support and patience.

3
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

DECLARATION BY CANDIDIATE

I, Saumya Rajpal solemnly declare that the project report is solely based on my own work
carried out with due care and diligence during the course of study under the supervision of Dr
Ambika. I truly assert that the statements made and the conclusions drawn are hereby an
outcome of my research work. I further certify that-

I. The work contained in the report is original and has been done by me under the general
supervision of my professor.
II. The work has not been submitted to any other Institution for any
degree/diploma/certificate in this university or any other University of India or abroad.
III. The guidelines provided by the university were followed in writing the report.
IV. Whenever any material was used like data, theoretical analysis, text or other materials
from other sources, due credit has been to the same in the text along with furnishing
their details for further references.

4
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The activities of public tribunals, boards, officials, and decision-makers are subject to judicial
supervision. Parties that have been impacted by decisions made by tribunals, boards, or other
public decision makers may occasionally file a lawsuit to request that the court examine an
administrative judgement. The term for this is judicial review. Judicial review is divided into
two major categories: procedural judicial review and substantive judicial review. A procedural
judicial review involves a claim that an administrative decision under review was obtained in
a way that did not follow procedural fairness, such as when natural justice was denied, or the
judgement was procedurally unjust in some other way.

Judicial Review in India is the power of the judiciary to review and declare the constitutionality
of laws and executive actions. It is derived from Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which
provides for the supremacy of the Constitution and invalidation of laws inconsistent with its
provisions. The Supreme Court of India has the authority to exercise this power and strike
down laws that violate fundamental rights or exceed the constitutional limits. Through judicial
review, the Indian judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring the protection of
individual rights and upholding the principles of justice, equality, and rule of law.

Judicial review of administrative tribunals in India refers to the power of the judiciary to
examine and scrutinize the decisions and actions of these specialized tribunals. While
administrative tribunals are entrusted with the task of resolving specific disputes related to
administrative matters, the courts possess the authority to review their decisions for legality,
procedural fairness, and adherence to constitutional principles. The Supreme Court of India, as
the apex court, holds the power of judicial review over administrative tribunals, ensuring that
their decisions are in conformity with the principles of natural justice, fairness, and
constitutional validity, thereby safeguarding the rights and interests of the individuals affected
by their rulings.

5
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Albert Venn Dicey lamented the erosion of the Rule of Law in England in a piece he wrote in
the second half of the 19th century. Formerly, the rule of law was a cherished tradition that set
English government apart from the executive dominance of French droit administratif and from
the nebulous guarantees of paper constitutions in nations like Belgium, etc. Legal equality was
the foundation of Rule of Law in Dicey's eyes. According to Dicey's idea, legislative bodies
should only be given the authority to enact laws. These statutes are designed to be administered
by the regular court of law. This has its origins in another body of law.

Montesquieu, a French social and political philosopher from the 18th century, is credited with
creating the phrase triaspolitica of separation of powers. The term "separation of powers" refers
to the division of political authority into separate branches in order to prevent any one branch
from carrying out the primary duties of another. The establishment of an administrative tribunal
goes against the notion of separation of powers. However, as governmental functions have
grown, the ability of regular courts of law to handle particular cases involving administrative
functions has decreased. The regular courts are overworked, and one must adhere to their rigid
standards of evidence and process. Therefore, the need for an informal, quick, and affordable
adjudication system was great.

Administrative tribunals in India are specialized judicial bodies that have been established to
handle administrative and regulatory disputes. These tribunals provide an alternative forum for
resolving disputes outside the traditional court system. They aim to expedite the resolution of
administrative cases and ensure specialized expertise in dealing with specific areas of law.

Establishment: The establishment of administrative tribunals in India is based on the power

conferred by Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution of India. Article 323-A deals
with the establishment of administrative tribunals for central government employees, while
Article 323-B deals with the establishment of similar tribunals for state government employees
and other matters.

Jurisdiction: Administrative tribunals have jurisdiction over specific areas of administrative

law. The jurisdiction of each tribunal is determined by the legislation under which it has been
established. For example, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has jurisdiction over

6
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

matters related to the recruitment, conditions of service, promotion, and disciplinary actions of
central government employees.

Composition: Administrative tribunals typically consist of judicial members and

administrative members. The judicial members are typically retired judges of the High Court
or Supreme Court, while the administrative members are experts in the relevant administrative
field. The composition of each tribunal is prescribed by the legislation establishing it.

Powers: Administrative tribunals have the power to adjudicate on matters within their
jurisdiction. They can summon witnesses, examine evidence, and pass judgments. The
decisions of administrative tribunals are considered quasi-judicial, meaning they have the force
of law and can be enforced like a court's order.

Appeals: The decisions of administrative tribunals can be appealed to higher courts. The
appeals generally lie with the High Court or the Supreme Court, depending on the nature and
subject matter of the dispute. The appellate courts can review the decisions of the tribunals on
questions of law and ensure that the tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction.

Independence: Administrative tribunals are intended to provide an independent and impartial

forum for resolving administrative disputes. The members of the tribunals are appointed
through a rigorous process, and they are expected to act independently and impartially in their
decision-making.

It is important to note that the specific details and functioning of administrative tribunals may
vary depending on the tribunal and the legislation governing it. The Indian government has
established various administrative tribunals to handle specific areas of administrative law,
ensuring specialized expertise and faster resolution of disputes.

7
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Disputes may develop in the administration of administrative law. Judgement is required in

these disagreements. In addition to the courts, administrative authorities can also resolve
disputes like these that arise during routine administrative tasks.

By administrative agencies or commissions created for the purpose, quasi-judicial disputes are
resolved through administrative adjudication. In the course of daily administration, a number
of technical problems and disputes arise. Because ordinary courts lack the necessary technical
knowledge, handling administrative law cases can be time-consuming and expensive. Only
administrative agencies are competent to investigate issues involving administrative
exigencies. Administrative tribunals are these administrative bodies having the authority to rule
on disputes resulting from administrative action or inaction.

The Administrative Tribunals have a special advantage over regular courts since they guarantee
affordability, accessibility, independence from technicality, promptness, and subject-matter
expertise. To ensure that administrative acts are regulated in a way that serves both institutional
and citizen requirements, administration professionals must be involved. In essence, what is at
stake is the balance between two ideals, namely the protection of the person and his legal
interests and the successful accomplishment of societal goals.

Aristotle noted that need is the first cause and the first among all causes. It was necessary to
create administrative bodies and the laws that regulate them, or "social necessity," as one as the
author has stated, as opposed to being unambiguous. According to history, "the two legal
systems that have had the most impression on the world, that of Rome and that of England,
have managed to do without administrative meddling with private rights other than in judicial
forms over large periods of time. The people whose demands for industrial regulation led to
the growth of administrative agencies and law understood that the requirement was thus a
relative one.

A dynamic system of administration, administrative adjudication better meets the complex and
varied demands of modern society than any other way. The following are the principal benefits
of administrative tribunals:

1) Flexibility

8
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

Both judicial and administrative tribunals now have more adaptability and flexibility thanks to
administrative adjudication. For instance, the judiciary is quite conservative and rigid in its
view and methodology. They risk having justice that isn't in line with how quickly society is
evolving. Because it is not constrained by strict rules of procedure and rules of evidence,
administrative adjudication can adapt to the changing stages of social and economic life.

2) Adequate Justice

Administrative tribunals are not only the most appropriate form of administrative action in
today's rapidly changing environment, but they are also the most effective way to provide fair
justice to the individuals. It is challenging for lawyers, who are more focused on legal issues,
to accurately analyse the demands of today's welfare society and pinpoint where each person
fits within it.

3) Less expensive

Administrative justice guarantees speedy and inexpensive justice. In contrast to this, judicial
procedures are drawn-out and onerous, and litigation is expensive. It entails paying hefty court
fines, hiring solicitors and covering other incidental costs. Most of the time, administrative
adjudication is free of stamp fees. Its processes are straightforward and easily comprehended
by a layman.

4) Assistance to Courts

Additionally, the system provides ordinary courts of law, which are already weighed down by
everyday suits.

5) Experimentation

In this area, experimentation is feasible but not in the context of legal proceedings.
Amendments to laws, rules, and regulations can more easily take use of the practical knowledge
obtained in the operation of any given authority. It is difficult to amend court-related laws.

9
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

JUDICIAL REVIEW

In a lawsuit brought by a party that feels wronged, the courts have the authority to decide
whether a legislative act is constitutional. The Court has the authority to nullify a legislative
Act for being unlawful. Smith & Zurcher have defined it as “The examination or review by the
Courts, in cases actually before them, of legislative statutes and executive or administrative
acts to determine whether or not they are prohibited by a written Constitution or are in excess
of powers granted by it, and if so, to declare them void and of no effect”1. According to Edward
S. Corwin, the courts have the authority and responsibility to void any legislative or executive
actions taken by the federal or state governments that they believe violate the Constitution2.

The Indian constitution does not grant supremacy to the parliament. Its abilities are constrained
in these two ways. The distribution of powers between the union and the states comes first.
Only those issues pertaining to which citizens are protected from all forms of legislative
encroachment are subjects over which Parliament has the authority to pass laws. The Supreme
Court is in a unique position in that it has the authority to review legislation passed by both the
federal government and state legislatures because it is the protector of fundamental rights and
the arbiter of constitutional disputes regarding the division of powers between the union and
the states. The power of judicial review of legislation is given to the judiciary both by the
political theory and text of the constitution. There are several specific provisions in the Indian
constitution, judicial review of legislation such as Act 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, 145, 246, and
372.

The judicial review of pre-constitutional law is also established under Article 372. According
to Article 13, any law that violates any of the provisions of the Fundamental Rights shall be
invalid. Even without the explicit clauses of Article 13, even our Supreme Court has made a
statement. The court would have the authority to void any legislation that violates a
fundamental right. According to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme and high
courts are designated as the custodian and guarantee of Fundamental Rights. According to
Articles 251 and 254, if there is a conflict between federal and state legislation, the federal law

1
Smith, Edward Conard and Zurcher, Arnold Jhon, Dictionary of America Politics, Barnes and Noble, New
York, 1959, p. 212.
2
Corwin, Edward S., A Constitution of Powers in a Secular State , The Michie Company, USA, 1951, p. 3-4

10
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

will take precedence. As a result, the notion of judicial review is well established in India and
is explicitly supported by the Constitution.

Article 13(2) even goes to the extent of saying that "The state shall not make any law which
takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part (Part III containing Fundamental
Rights) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void." Thus, it is the constitutional responsibility of the Indian courts to
interpret the Constitution and declare a law unconstitutional if it is discovered to be in conflict
with any constitutional provision. Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, the courts serve as
sentinels on the qui vive.

The first alteration Act of 1951 was contested before the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad v.
Union of India3 on the grounds that it violated the right to property and could not be changed
since Article 13 (2) forbade the alteration of Fundamental Rights. Law, as used in the context
of Article 13 must be understood to include both rules or regulations issued in the course of
exercising ordinary legislative authority and modifications to the constitution made in the
course of exercising constituent power. As a result, Article 13 (2) has no bearing on
amendments made in accordance with Article 368. The constitutionality of parliament's ability
to pass the 17th amendment was contested in Sajjan Singh's case4 on the grounds that it
breached Article 31(A)'s provisions for fundamental rights, a five-judge bench.

In the Minerva Mills5, Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act gave precedence to the Directive
Principles over Articles 24, 19, and 31 of Part III of the Constitution, was struck down by the
Supreme Court by a majority decision on the grounds that Part III and Part IV of the
Constitution are equally important and that giving one-part absolute precedence over the other
is not permissible because doing so would disrupt the harmony of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court was certain that anything that upsets the equilibrium between the two parts will
Ipso Tacto undermine a crucial tenet of our constitution's fundamental design.

3
AIR 1951 SC 458
4
Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845
5
(1980) 3 SCC 625

11
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Tribunal-based justice is a recognised kind of justice that is practised not only in India but
virtually everywhere else as well. Tribunals have demonstrated that they are effective
supporters of justice. As 'partners' with the courts, they can function effectively because they
can distribute the load. They will take over from the courts the rush in particular regions. An
exhaustive list of the tribunals established by federal and state law is challenging to compile.
However, the reality remains that they are numerous and resolve a sizable number of conflicts.

The court held: "Tribunals which do not derive authority from the sovereign power cannot fall
within the ambit of Art. 136." The court went on to explain the "fundamentals" which are
essential before a tribunal may be encompassed within the meaning of article 136. The State
must have established the tribunal in order for it to fall under the purview of Article 136. Again,
if a tribunal only performs administrative or executive activities and is not entrusted with any
portion of the State's judicial authorities, it would fall beyond the purview of Art. 136.
However, tribunals that are determined to possess some Court of Justice-like powers and
accoutrements would likewise be included in the scope of Art. 136.

In India, the concept of administrative tribunals was introduced to provide specialized and
expeditious justice in matters related to administrative law. Administrative tribunals are quasi-
judicial bodies set up under specific statutes to adjudicate disputes arising in the field of
administrative law. However, the decisions of these tribunals are subject to judicial review by
the higher courts, including the Supreme Court of India.

The power of judicial review over administrative tribunals is derived from the basic structure
of the Indian Constitution and the principles of natural justice. The Constitution of India, under
Articles 32 and 226, empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue writs
for the enforcement of fundamental rights and to ensure the legality and fairness of
administrative actions. The scope of judicial review over administrative tribunals includes
examining the legality, procedural fairness, and constitutional validity of their decisions. The
courts may intervene if a tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction, acts in violation of the principles of
natural justice, or fails to adhere to the constitutional principles. The power of judicial review
ensures that the decisions of administrative tribunals are not arbitrary, biased, or against the
principles of justice.

12
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

One important aspect of judicial review of administrative tribunals is the doctrine of ultra vires.
If a tribunal acts beyond its statutory powers or against the provisions of the law, the courts
have the authority to declare its decisions ultra vires and strike them down. This ensures that
the tribunals stay within their prescribed limits and do not encroach upon the powers of other
organs of the state. Furthermore, the courts can also review the procedural aspects of a tribunal's
decision-making process. They can examine whether the tribunal followed the principles of
natural justice, such as providing a fair hearing, giving reasons for its decisions, and acting
without bias. If the courts find any procedural irregularities, they may quash the decision and
direct the tribunal to reconsider the matter.

In addition, the power of judicial review extends to the constitutional validity of the laws that
establish and govern the functioning of administrative tribunals. If a statute or a provision of
law is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the courts can declare it
unconstitutional and strike it down. This ensures that the administrative tribunals function
within the constitutional framework and do not violate the fundamental rights of the
individuals. Overall, judicial review of administrative tribunals in India plays a crucial role in
ensuring that these specialized bodies act within their statutory limits, follow the principles of
natural justice, and uphold the constitutional principles. It acts as a safeguard to protect the
rights and interests of the individuals affected by the decisions of administrative tribunals, and
it ensures accountability and fairness in the administrative justice system.

13
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA

S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India6 an important case in the judicial history of India which
primarily dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 28 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals
Act of 1985. The aforementioned statute established Administrative Tribunals in accordance
with Article 323-A, which calls for a tribunal system to expeditiously and effectively resolve
disputes in light of the fact that the High Courts are already overworked. However, this
legislation enabled exclusive tribunals, i.e., those that are not subject to the judicial review of
High Courts, which is against the judicial review authority provided by Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution. Section 28(1) of the Act, in essence, deprived the High Courts of this power
and thus, was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Background of the case

The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution added Clause (1) of Article 343-A in 1976,
allowing the parliament to create administrative tribunals through legislation to resolve
complaints involving disagreements over hiring practises and other terms of public servants'
employment. The conflicts and judgements of these tribunals are not subject to the jurisdiction
of any national court, with the exception of the Supreme Court, according to Clause 2(d) of the
same Article. In contrast, Section 28 of the Administrative Courts Act of 1985 had even
prohibited the Supreme Court from exercising any authority over these courts under Article
32. The 1976 Act was revised by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance in
1986, allowing the Apex Court to keep both its original authority and its appellate jurisdiction
under Article 136. The High Court still lacked the authority to handle these issues, though.

Main legal issues concerned

The main questions as were raised by the writs and framed by the court are-

1. Was granting of exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, subject to exceptions in favour
of the Supreme Court Court's ambit under Articles 32 and 136, and the abrogation of the
High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as mentioned in
section 28 of the contested Act is void and unconstitutional in any particular event?

6
S. P. Sampath Kumar & etc. vs Union of India & Ors. 1987 AIR 386.

14
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

2. Were the provisions of the impugned Act being invalidated by the composition of the
Administrative Tribunal and the mode of appointment of Chairman, Vice- Chairmen and
members, and do they have the effect of introducing a constitutional infirmity?

Judgment

After taking note of both the parties, the Court made as set of observations. The Act supplanted
the positioning of a High Court, then in essence, the Chief Justice of an HC should have the
same standing as the Chairman of a tribunal. For this, it must be quintessential that the
Chairman should be equally experienced. Thus, the person taking this position up should have
either been a judge at any High Court or the Vice-Chairman of such a tribunal for minimum 2
years. If such a person is made the head of an administrative tribunal, it would render the entire
alternative process inefficient, owing to his lack of judicial or legal knowledge. In furtherance
of this observation, the Court struck down Clause (c) of s.6(1).

The Apex court heavily relied on the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors.7 which had elaborated upon the functions of Article 323. In this case a constitutional
amendment limited the jurisdiction of High Courts without providing any alternate and equally
efficacious resort within the purview of the Constitution. In this decision, the Court made the
observation that in-depth legal education and experience are necessary for administrative
tribunals to be effective, which is also why it invalidated Clause (c) of Section 6 (1). It also
clarified and altered the requirements for applying for other posts. The Court further noted that
the Act's provisions effectively completely shield the judiciary by forbidding any judicial
interferences, and that this absence of a check-and-balance mechanism runs counter to the
Constitution's fundamental design. They further pointed out that as the Supreme Court still
retains its appellate and original jurisdiction, the absence of the High Court's authority does not
completely exclude judicial review.

In the Sampath Kumar case, it was also noted that there must be a permanent or circuit bench
of the Administrative Tribunal in every location where the High Court has a seat if the
Administrative Tribunal is to be an equally effective and efficacious replacement for the High
Court not only in form and de jure, but in content and de facto.

7
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1980 SC 1789

15
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

The Supreme Court used the "effective alternative mechanism" theory to rule that even though
judicial review is a fundamental component of the constitution, giving the power to an
alternative institutional mechanism after the High Courts had it would not be in violation of
the fundamental framework as long as it was ensured that the alternative mechanism was a true
and effective replacement for the High Court. According to Article 227 of the Constitution, the
High Courts have the authority to supervise all Courts and Tribunals that fall within their
purview.

The High Courts' authority to issue prerogative writs for any purpose, including the
enforcement of rights granted by Part III, is sufficiently broad to cover both the protection of
legal rights and fundamental rights. Article 226(4), which runs parallel to the aforementioned
provision and does not derogate from the authority granted by Article 32(2) of the Constitution
to issue such writs, defines this power in conjunction with the power of superintendence. The
sole right to issue prerogative writs cannot be delegated to any Tribunal without a constitutional
amendment. The authority of judicial review, which is inherent in the sovereign duty placed on
the court, cannot be granted to the Tribunal established by a statute.

Therefore, as was intended by the constitutional founders, there must be a judicial process to
function as a check against legislative and executive excesses in order to enhance democracy
and allow it to expand in order to inspire trust and faith in the people. This is the fundamental
reason why the High Court is given the authority to supervise a Tribunal.

16
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

L CHANDRA KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA

As it was believed that the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction in respect to service
problems went against the spirit of the Constitution, there were significant disagreements over
the legality of Articles 323A and 323B. The courts have attempted to put this dispute to rest in
various cases, ranging from Kesavnanda Bharati's8 case to Sampat Kumar's9 case and beyond,
but in doing so, they have only served to fuel new debates. But the decisive ruling in the
instance of L. Chandra Kumar put the subject to rest. In the end, it was determined that even
though judicial review is a fundamental component of the Constitution, it would not be
unconstitutional to transfer the power of judicial review from the High Court to another
institutional mechanism, provided that this alternative mechanism was a real and effective
replacement for the High Court.

Similar questions were raised subsequently in many cases and one of them was L. Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India10. In this case, the bench came to the following conclusions after
examining the pertinent Constitutional provisions and the events that led to the ruling in Sampat
Kumar's case: - due to the divergent opinions expressed by the Supreme Court in a number of
cases after Sampat Kumar's case, the resulting situation warranted a new look by a larger Bench
over all the issues decided by the Court in Sampat Kumar's case, including the question of
whether the Tribunal can at any time intervene in the case if it were to have the power of even
deciding the constitutional validity of a statute or Article 309 rule as decided in J. B. Chopra
v. Union of India11.The present case under discussion is the very case where the larger bench
looked over all the issues adjudicated by the Court in Sampat Kumar’s case.

Issues raised

1. Does the Indian Constitution's Article 323-A (2) (d) or Article 323-B (3) (d) grant the
Parliament or State Legislature the authority to completely exclude the jurisdiction of "all
courts" other than the Supreme Court under Article 136?

8
(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
9
Ibid 6.
10
AIR 1997 SC 1125
11
AIR 1987 SC 357

17
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

2. Is it true that the Tribunals established under Article 323A or Article 323B of the
Constitution have the authority to examine the constitutionality of a statutory provision or
rule?

1. Is it possible to say that the Tribunals, in the way that they are now operating, effectively
replace the High Court in exercising its judicial review authority? If not, what adjustments
are necessary to bring them into compliance with their original goals?

Judgment

Issue 1- While dealing with the 1st question, the Court referred to the case of M. B. Majumdar
v. Union of India 12found that administrative tribunals can be compared to high courts in terms
of their authority over employment issues, but not in terms of the working conditions of the
tribunal's members. In R. K. Jain v. Union of India13, which coincidentally had the same bench
as in the case under discussion, the relevant provisions were examined, and it was determined
that the Tribunals under Article 323A could not replace the High Court because of their
unsatisfactory performance and the fact that they gave litigants only one remedy under Section
136—an expensive appeal to the Supreme Court. It suggested that an expert body like the Law
Commission of India should study the feasibility of providing an appeal to a two judge Bench
of the High Court from a decision of the Tribunals.

The court also considered the recommendations given by the experienced solicitors. Mr. Rama
Jois and Mr. Shanti Bhushan argued that Articles 323A (2) (d) and 323B (3) (d) should be
declared unconstitutional to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court and
requested the court to revisit the decision in Sampat Kumar's case. Next it went to discuss the
other facet of this issue viz. judicial review and the basic feature of the constitution. After citing
various cases like Kesavananda Bharati’s case14, dissenting view of Chandrachud J. in Indira
Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain15, minority judgment of Bhagwati J. in Minerava Mills v. Union
of India16 and the view, or rather a revised view, of Chandrachud CJ. In Fertilizer Corporation
Kamgar Union v. Union of India17, the Court came to the conclusion that judicial review is

12
1990 AIR 2263, 1990 SCR (3) 946
13
Ibid 11.
14
Ibid 8.
15
1975 AIR 1590, 1975 SCC (2) 159
16
Ibid 7.
17
1981 AIR 344, 1981 SCR (2) 52

18
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

indeed a basic feature of the Constitution. The court also cited Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's assertion
that Article 25—which corresponds to the current Article 32 of the Constitution—is the
fundamental essence of the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar served as the chairman of the
committee that drafted the Indian Constitution.

Issue 2- The court also concurred that there is no reason why the High Court's authority under
Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be expanded in the same way that the judicial review
power granted to it under Article 32 of the Constitution, which has been called the "heart and
soul" of the Constitution, can. However, it is essential that the Supreme Court's authority under
Article 32 and the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 be preserved, and that
the Tribunals continue to serve as an additional body. As a result, it was decided that the High
Court would have the authority to evaluate the Tribunals' authority in accordance with Articles
226 and 227. This would accomplish two things: first, it would ensure that frivolous claims
would be eliminated throughout the Tribunal's adjudication process, and second, the High
Court's judicial review authority would remain intact. Therefore, the Supreme Court
determined that the Tribunals established in accordance with either Article 323A or Article
323B of the Constitution have the authority to evaluate the constitutionality of a legislative
provision or regulation that is being reviewed by the High Court.

Issue 3- The Court throughout the judgment pointed out that the Tribunals are not substitutes
of the High Court but are supplementary. Moreover, it suggested the following changes:

• They will function as a supplementary body and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be
subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts.
• The contention that appointment of administrative members to Administrative Tribunals
should be stopped cannot be accepted as a judicious mix of judicial members and those
with grass-root experience would be better suited for the purpose of speedy and efficient
discharge of justice.
• To remove the inefficiency of the Tribunals the tribunals should be made subject to the
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
• The Ministry may appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the working of the
tribunals.

19
Himachal Pradesh National Law University

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the power of judicial review and the growth of administrative tribunals have
been significant developments in India's legal landscape. Judicial review, derived from the
Indian Constitution, empowers the judiciary to ensure the constitutionality and legality of laws
and executive actions. It acts as a bulwark against arbitrary exercise of power and upholds the
principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law.

The establishment of administrative tribunals has aimed to provide specialized and expeditious
justice in administrative matters. However, the power of judicial review over these tribunals
remains essential to maintain checks and balances in the administrative justice system. It
ensures that tribunals act within their prescribed limits, adhere to principles of natural justice,
and respect constitutional provisions. Through judicial review, the higher courts in India
exercise their authority to scrutinize and correct any errors or violations committed by
administrative tribunals. This ensures fairness, accountability, and the protection of individual
rights. The courts can strike down ultra vires decisions, intervene in procedural irregularities,
and review the constitutional validity of laws governing the tribunals.

The growth of administrative tribunals and the power of judicial review collectively contribute
to a more effective and accessible justice system. This dynamic interplay between
administrative tribunals and judicial review promotes efficiency, fairness, and transparency in
the administrative decision-making process. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between
administrative efficiency and judicial oversight. While administrative tribunals provide
expeditious justice, it is essential to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of administrative
tribunals, along with robust judicial review, are necessary to address any potential concerns or
shortcomings that may arise.

In conclusion, the power of judicial review and the growth of administrative tribunals in India
represent significant strides towards a more just and accountable legal system. They ensure the
protection of individual rights, uphold constitutional principles, and maintain a delicate balance
between administrative efficiency and judicial oversight. It is through these mechanisms that
India's legal framework strives to achieve the ideals of justice, equality, and the rule of law for
its citizens.

20