Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. After S.P.Sampathkumar, the next case to come up before the Supreme Court was the one in R.K.Jain Vs. Union of India [1993 (4) SCC 119]. In the said decision, K.Ramaswamy,J, in his independent opinion, indicated in paragraph 67 that the Tribunals set up under Articles 323A and 323B of The Constitution or under an Act of Legislature are creatures of the Statute and that in no case can they claim the status of Judges of the High Court or parity or claim to be substitutes. It would be of interest to note that the learned Judge referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in S.P.Sampathkumar and still pointed out in paragraph 66 that what was meant by the Court in S.P.Sampathkumar was that the Tribunals are created as an institutional alternative mechanism to adjudicate service disputations. The learned Judge held towards the end of paragraph 66 of the report in R.K.Jain that ?this Court did not appear to have meant that the Tribunals are substitutes of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution.? Consequently, the Bench pointed out in paragraph 70 that ? judicial review is the basic and essential feature of the Indian Constitutional Scheme entrusted to the Judiciary? and that ?it cannot be dispensed with by creating a Tribunal under Articles 323A and 323B of The Constitution.? The Court further held that ?any institutional mechanism or Authority in negation of a judicial review is destructive of basic structure.?

21. After R.K.Jain came the decision of the Supreme Court in L.Chandrakumar. In L.Chandrakumar, the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested with the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of The Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. In paragraph 79, the Supreme Court specifically held that ?the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all Courts and Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of The Constitution.? As a consequence of the aforesaid conclusion, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, in L.Chandrakumar, Clause (2)(d) of Article 323A and Clause (3)(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also declared as unconstitutional, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, to the extent that it excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court. More specifically, the Larger Bench held in paragraph 99 as follows :

27. The next decision of the Supreme Court was that of a Nine Member Bench in I.R.Coelho (dead) by L.Rs. Vs State of Tamilnadu [2007 (2) SCC 1]. What led to a reference to the Nine Judges Bench was the question as to whether the protection afforded by Article 31B of The Constitution, was available to the laws added to the 9th Schedule by way of amendments issued after 24.4.1973, the date on which, the decision in Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1973 SC 1461] came. The necessity for such a reference arose in view of the attempts made by the Parliament to include several laws in the 9th Schedule, so as to get over the difficulty posed by the basic structure theory propounded and accepted in Kesavananda Bharati. In paragraphs 135 and 136 of its decision in I.R.Coelho, the Supreme Court dealt with the question as to whether the exclusion of judicial review was compatible with the doctrine of basic structure. It was held in paragraphs 135 and 136 as follows :

28. Though the decision of a Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Others [2010 (3) SCC 571] arose in a different context with regard to the power of the High Court to order an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court considered in that case, the question whether the power under Articles 226/227 was part of the basic structure. In paragraph 39 of its decision, the Supreme Court pointed out that the power of judicial review stands on a different pedestal and that being part of the basic structure of The Constitution, it cannot be ousted or abridged even by a Constitutional amendment. Again in paragraph 51, the Court pointed out that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts is an integral part and essential feature of The Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. While eliciting the conclusions that the Constitution Bench reached in the said decision, the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 68(iii) and (v) as follows :