Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Before the advent of Administrative Tribunals, the service jurisdiction was within the realm of the High Courts which were exercising -power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, the Administrative Tribunal was constituted in the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 371-D of the Indian Constitution which was inserted by Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1973. Parliament thought it fit to constitute Administrative Tribunals both for Central and State services and to pave the way, had enacted Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 whereby Article 323-A was inserted. The said Article empowers the Parliament to enact a law creating a separate judicial forum to resolve the disputes regarding service matters. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is one of such Acts in that direction. The validity of the said Constitution provision and the Tribunals Act came to be questioned in several High Courts as also in Supreme Court directly and all the matters were consolidated and were heard by the Supreme Court and by judgment dated 9-12-1996, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386, upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution Amendment Act and consequently Article 323-A as also the creation of the Tribunals explaining that the basic structure of the Constitution is not violated merely because the power of judicial review of the High Courts in service matters is taken away, as it is entrusted to an alternative judicial mechanism i.e., the Tribunals and made some suggestions to make the said alternative judicial mechanism an effective forum. But, the litigation did not stop there and again the constitutional validity of Article 323-A and the resultant Tribunals Act were questioned and in the second round, the Supreme Court in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (supra) has deviated from the stand taken in S.P. Sampath Kumar's case (supra) holding that the Tribunals constituted under the Tribunals Act cannot be called alternative judicial mechanism and they can only supplement the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and cannot supplant the said constitutional remedies. But, the Supreme Court had ruled that the High Court cannot entertain the writ petitions directly even if the legislative action is questioned and that power of judicial review by the High Court can be exercised only after the exercise of the powers by the Administrative Tribunals and not at the fifst instance. But, Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao would argue that once the power of the High Courts of their judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are recognised and have held to be inviolable, it is for the High Courts to decide in the circumstances of each case, as to whether the alternative remedy should be resorted to and that the Supreme Court cannot impose such restrictions by judgment, as the source of power of judicial review in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is the Constituent Assembly and as the said power of judicial review conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on the High Courts is a basic structure of the Constitution, the same is unalterable. But, the Supreme Court was alive to the situation and ruled that because of the docket explosion and to save time, the Tribunals should act as the Courts of first instance to deal with matters effectively and only then power of judicial review can be exercised by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, so as to only see as to whether the decision-making process of the Tribunal is valid or not. Article 141 of the Indian Constitution has been enacted keeping in view the principle of consistency in judicial precedents and enunciation of legal principles by the Supreme Court while interpreting a statute is a stare decisis and is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. No doubt, Articles 226 and 227 confer power of judicial review on the High Courts, but as to how the power of said judicial review should be exercised in service matters is formulated and modulated by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) and that is the law holding the field on the subject and it is not permissible to rake-up that issue again and again and more so, when- the matter decided by a Division Bench of this Court in M. Krishna Rao v. Union of India, , is pending before the Supreme Court for adjudication. Now, it is for the Apex Court to dwell on that subject and not for this Court.