Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

J U D G M E N T SRIKRISHNA,J.

This appeal by special leave impugns a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holding certain provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as ultra vires the Constitution of India as also declaring that clause 3(e) of Article 323B of the Constitution to the extent it provides for transfer of all pending cases under Article 323 B violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment also declares section 9 of the said Act as ultra vires the Constitution and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. The provision of the said Act, by which all pending matters, proceedings, cases and appeals before the High Court stood transferred to the Tribunal under section 9, is also ultra vires the Constitution as it abridges and takes away the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and consequently violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

The learned single Judge of the High Court negatived the first contention and held that the said Act was enacted for resolution of disputes relating to and arising out of certain acts specified therein for which purpose the Tribunal could be validly constituted under Article 323 B of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge also held that Constitution of the Tribunal under the said Act in relation to the specified enactments was not ultra vires Article 323B (2) (d) of the Constitution. However, the learned single Judge accepted the second and third contentions by taking the view that the observations made by Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261 did not amount to 'law declared' within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, was not binding on the High Court. Having examined it independently, he concluded that the impugned provisions of the said Act were violative of the Constitution including the basic structure thereof and struck them down.

"In my opinion, ratio and/or issue which has been decided in the aforesaid judgment is whether the power under Articles 226 & 227 of the High Court can be ousted by enacting a legislation in exercise of power under Articles 323 A & B. It has been decided answering the above issue that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 is inviolable provision and the same being the par of the basic structure of the Constitution. The legislature is not competent to take away such authority. In paragraphs 90 & 99 it has been made amply clear.

99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) or Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 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 supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated."