Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that in spite of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in view of the bar contained in clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution. It was argued that the aggrieved person will have to avail himself the remedy provided in Rule 7 and cannot approach the High Court in the first instance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. We do not find any merit in this contention. We are of the view that a voter in a particular panchayat cannot be rendered remediless if he is aggrieved by the election of the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat. In His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225, a thirteen Judge Bench of this Court held that Article 368 of the Constitution does not enable the Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered by any constitutional amendment and it was held in unambiguous terms that one of the basic features is the existence of constitutional system in judicial review. This view was followed by a Constitution Bench in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 625. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261, a seven Judge Bench of this Court has held that jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and tribunals may perform a supplementary role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It has been held as under:

(37 of 65) [CW-2509/2020] In I.R. Coelho (dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1, a Bench of nine Judges has again held that power of judicial review is the part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The power to amend cannot be equated with the power to frame the Constitution.

13. It is thus clear that power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. However, it is left to the discretion of the court exercising the power under Articles 226/227 to entertain the writ petition.

53. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Benedict Denis Kinny & Ors. Vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.1429-1430/2020] decided on 19.03.2020 has again considered the scope of exercise of power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and legal fiction engrafted in a State Enactment. The Apex Court has held that power of judicial review, vested in the High Court under Article 226 and the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and is basic structure of our Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is (59 of 65) [CW-2509/2020] original, extraordinary and discretionary. The look out of the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a statutory authority, a Tribunal or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court also held that power under Article 226 of the Constitution overrides any contrary provision in a statute and the power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be taken away or abridged by any contrary provision in a statute. The Apex Court also held that when a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous and the interim order can always be passed by a High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so that at the time of final decision of the writ petition, the relief may not become infructuous. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

(i) The power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and is basic structure of our Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary and discretionary. The look out of the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a tribunal, a statutory authority or an authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.