Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"2. No constitutional objection to the validity of clause (3) of Article 371-D could possibly taken since we have already held in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, decided on 9th December, 1986 (reported in AIR 1987 SC 386) that judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution and it cannot be abrogated without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution, but Parliament can ceitainly without in any way violating the basic structure doctrine amend the Constitution so as to set up an effective alternative institutional mechanism or arrangement for judicial review. One of us (Bhagwati, C.J.) pointed out in the judgment delivered in that case that : "the basic and essential feature of judicial review cannot be dispensed with but it would be within the competence of Parliament to amend the Constitution so as to substitute in place of the High Court, another alternative institutional mechanism or arrangement for judicial review, provided it is not less efficacious than the High Court". We summarised the constitutional position in regard to the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution with a view to taking up the jurisdiction of the High Court in the following words:

............if any constitutional amendment made by Parliament takes away from the High Court the power of judicial review in any particular area and vests it in any other institutional mechanism or authority, it would not be volatile of the basic structure doctrine so long as the essential condition is fulfilled, namely, that the alternative institutional mechanism or authority set up by the Parliamentary amendment is so less effective than the High Court.

"Parliament was therefore competent by enacting clause (3) of Article 371-D to provide for setting up an Administrative Tribunal and excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court in regard to the matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal so long as the Administrative Tribunal was not less effective or efficacious than the High Court insofar as the power of judicial review is concerned. The constitutional validity of clause (3) of Article371-D could not therefore be successfully assailed on the ground that it excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court in regard to certain specified service matters and vested it in the Administrative Tribunal."

14. But at the same time their Lordships struck down the proviso to Clause 5 of Article 371-D of the Constitution conferring power on the State Government to modify or anal the order of the Administrative Tribunal by holding that it is violative of the doctrine of basic structure. The Constitutional amendment falls under the basic structure of the Constitution and the proviso to clause (5) of Article 371-D deprive the Administrative Tribunal of its effectiveness and efficacy which enable the State Government which is a party before the Tribunal to override the decision.

17. With the result the decisions cited supra upholding the constitutional validity of Article 371-D of the Constitution became non-est and the issue whether Article 371-D opposes the basic structure of the Constitution or not is at large and it has to be gone into. In fact in Devarakonda Rajesh Babu's case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court did not permit the Counsel for the petitioner to raise the question of constitutional validity of Article 371-D of the Constitution vis-a-vis whether it violates the basic structure of the Constitution on the same ground since the issue was not raised in the writ petition and requires examination at a deeper depth. Hence I am of the opinion that the issue whether Article 371-D is ultra vires of the Constitution or not is wide open and it requires reconsideration.