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

The case arose from multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India, which had been inserted by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.

Article 323A empowered Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of disputes relating to recruitment and service conditions of public servants.

Article 323B authorized the establishment of tribunals for matters relating to: Taxation, Industrial and labour disputes, Elections, Land reforms, Ceiling on urban property, Essential commodities, and Other specified subjects.

Pursuant to Article 323A, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 excluded the jurisdiction of: High Courts under Articles 226 and 227; and Other courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.

Similar exclusionary provisions existed in laws enacted under Article 323B. The petitioners challenged these provisions on the ground that exclusion of judicial review by constitutional courts violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

The matters were referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court for authoritative determination.

Judicial Review is Part of the Basic Structure: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional principle established in earlier decisions such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789. The Court held that judicial review by: The Supreme Court under Article 32; and The High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 constitutes an essential and integral feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, these powers cannot be abrogated or excluded even by constitutional amendment.

Tribunals Cannot Replace Constitutional Courts: The Court acknowledged that tribunals are competent adjudicatory bodies capable of deciding disputes and even examining constitutional questions relating to statutory provisions. However, tribunals cannot function as effective substitutes for High Courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that High Courts possess a constitutional status and play a vital role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights. Accordingly, decisions of tribunals must remain subject to scrutiny by the High Courts.

Invalidity of Exclusionary Clauses: The Court examined Clause (d) of Article 323A(2) and Clause (d) of Article 323B(3), which empowered Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136. The Court held that these clauses were unconstitutional to the extent they excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. Similarly, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was declared unconstitutional insofar as it barred judicial review by High Courts. The Court clarified that while tribunals may serve as courts of first instance in specialized areas, their decisions would remain subject to judicial review before Division Benches of the High Courts.

Role of the Supreme Court Under Article 32: The Court further held that direct recourse to the Supreme Court under Article 32 against tribunal decisions should ordinarily be avoided. Instead, litigants must first approach the respective High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. The Supreme Court would thereafter exercise its appellate jurisdiction in appropriate cases.

Doctrine of Severability: The Court applied the Doctrine of Severability and held that Paragraph 7 was severable from the remaining provisions of the Tenth Schedule. Since the Anti-Defection Law could function independently without Paragraph 7, the invalidity of that paragraph did not affect the validity of the rest of the Schedule. Thus, the remainder of the Tenth Schedule continued to remain constitutionally valid.