The famous l Chandra Kumar case from 1997 established the legality of article 323 a of indian constitution and article 323 b of indian constitution, which dealt with the High Court’s authority being excluded from service concerns. A commonly discussed distinction between tribunals and courts of law is made in the judgment.
l chandra kumar vs union of india case Facts
- Numerous petitions for special leave, civil appeals, and writ petitions collectively amount to a series of constitutional validity questions that have their roots in distinct rulings from various High Courts and numerous sections of various enactments that are relevant to the dispute.
- The question being contested is whether article 323 a of indian constitution and article 323 b of indian constitution, which were established under Part XIVA of the Indian Constitution, can take the place of the High Court’s authority under Articles 226 and 227 to exercise judicial oversight.
- In light of the authority granted by Clause 1 of Article 323A of the Constitution, the Parliament passed the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. As a result, the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has five (5) benches, was founded on November 1, 1985.
- Nevertheless, prior to the establishment of the Tribunal, a number of petitions for the order were filed before the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, as applicable, contesting the constitutionality of subclauses (d) of Clause 2 of Article 323A and subclause (d) of Clause 3 of Article 323B of the Indian Constitution, 1950, as well as the constitutional implications of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provision.
- These petitions argued that the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 violated the spirit of the Constitution by excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court, as stipulated in Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, as stipulated in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
l chandra kumar vs union of india Issues
- Is there a conflict between the judicial review authority granted to High courts under article 226/221 and the supreme court under article 32 of Col. and the power granted to parliament by article 323 A (2) (d) or state legislature by article 323 B (3) (d) of the Col. to completely exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, with the exception of the supreme court (under art. 136), with regard to matters referred in 323 A (1) or 323 B (2)?
- Do the tribunals established under article 323 a of indian constitution and article 323 b of indian constitution have the authority to determine whether legislative provisions or rules are constitutional?
- Is it true that these tribunals, in the capacity in which they currently operate, effectively replace High courts in exercising the authority of judicial review? If not, what adjustments are necessary to bring them into line with their original goals?
l chandra kumar case Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Sampat Kumar case decision rested on the expectation that tribunals would be effective. However, it is incorrect both legally and factually.
- Under Articles 215, 132, and 133, high courts have extensive authority. Not in the case of tribunals.
- Tribunal members’ qualifications and those of judges on the High Court are not equivalent.
- High courts’ jurisdiction is safeguarded by the constitution. However, a tribunal can be easily removed by simply repealing the parent act.
- High courts rely on state funding for its expenses, while tribunals are funded by the relevant government.
- Under Article 226/227, high courts have the authority to grant prerogative write. No tribunal operating within a High Court’s geographical jurisdiction may reject the low that it has proclaimed.
- The real-world issues advocates have while trying to represent themselves in tribunals.
- The purpose of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was to grant constitutional authority to entities whose creation and operation could be managed by executives.
Respondent:
- article 323 a of indian constitution and article 323 b of indian constitution do not attempt to limit the High courts’ supervisory authority over any tribunals located within their respective territorial jurisdictions.
- There is an issue with high court pendency. Therefore, it should be fixed rather than destroyed.
- Separation of powers is one of the fundamental aspects of the constitution, as demonstrated by the Kesavananda Bharati case, which also highlights the intrinsic contrast between specific laws. It applies to judicial review as well.
- Even when parties are obligated to file a matter before the High Court (226/227) rather than the Supreme Court. Service masters may be transferred to tribunals for many reasons, notwithstanding their relative lack of significance.
- Changes in the original jurisdiction of the high court and supreme court may be made by Parliament and state legislatures through legislation, unless there is a clear constitutional ban against it.
- As long as the alternative method is just as effective as courts, it does not violate the fundamental framework. Thus, in order to guarantee tribunal members’ tenure stability and independence
l chandra kumar vs union of india Judgment
- Tribunals have the authority to consider cases in which the scope of statutory provisions is contested. Tribunals are not the Supreme Court or the High Court’s replacements. They provide complementary roles. Their choices are scrutinized by the High Court’s division bench.
- Tribunals have the authority to examine the validity of rules and subordinate laws, with the exception of parent statutes.
- In cases when litigants contest the scope of statutory legislation (with the exemption stated) by ignoring the relevant tribunal’s jurisdiction, they will not seek the High Court directly.
- This ruling, which prospectively reversed the Sampat Kumar case ruling, became operative.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
