Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: "basic structure" in G. Lakshmi Reddy And Ors. vs Principal Secretary To Government, ... on 23 November, 2001Matching Fragments
REASONS FOR REFERENCE:
2. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S.R. Nayak, J. and' S. Ananda Reddy, J. by the order under reference, the matter was referred for decision by a larger Bench as to whether the directives issued by the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, to the effect that a writ petition can be filed by a civil servant only upon exhausting the remedies before the Administrative Tribunal and not directly regardless of the urgency or extraordinary situation that may exist in a given case, would impair or in any way dilute the efficacy of the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which power is held to be the basic structure/feature of the Constitution.
8. The powers of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution having been held to be a basic feature of the Constitution, no law could have been declared to the effect that a litigant must take recourse to the alternative remedy at the first instance, which merely constitutes a rule of self-restraint. The law declared under Article 141 being a law within the meaning of Article 13, the same also should pass the basic structure test. In any event, the writ petition having been filed on 23-11-1993 after the decision of this Court in Sakinala Harinath (2 supra) rendered On 26-10-1993 and by reason of suspension of the said judgment by the apex Court on 14-1-1994 this Court should not ask the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.
The directions issued by us in respect of making the decisions of Tribunals amenable to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts will, however, come into effect prospectively i.e., will apply to decisions rendered hereafter. To maintain the sanctity of judicial proceeding, we have invoked the doctrine of prospective over-ruling so as not to disturb the procedure in relation to decisions already rendered.
20. Nowhere in the world the doctrine of basic structure was used as a scale to balance State's interests and citizen's rights. Supremacy of the Constitution, Republican and democratic form of Government, secular character of Constitution, separation of powers, judicial review, federal character of the Constitution, sovereignty, integrity and unity of the country are some of the basic structures of the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure expounded by the Supreme Court of India in Kesavananda Bharati was adopted by Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Anwar Hussain Choudary v. Bangladesh, 41 DLR 1989 and Lahore High Court and Baluchistan High Court in Pakistan, PLD 1980 Lahore 206 & NLR 1980 CIR Quota 873. Kesavananda Bharathi case is a watershed in the Indian constitutionlism and constitutional history. It is only due to creative and innovative interpretation that basic structure theory is part of Indian constitutional law and after the discovery of the same the entire governance underwent changes. The power politics have given rise to developmental politics; economic exploitation has given rise to social and economic egalitarianism. The glaring differences in haves and have-nots have been narrowed down and human rights have come to occupy a pride of place in our polity.
24. The short question, which thus arises for consideration is as to whether while pronouncing a judgment, the Supreme Court itself can lay down a law which would be contrary to the basic structure theory.
25. As noticed hereinbefore, the basic feature doctrine is employed only when questions of constitutionality of a statute or the provisions of the Constitution come up for consideration. The basic structure doctrine has no relevance whatsoever for interpretation of a law declared by the Supreme Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution.