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:

13. From the above it is seen that their Lordships of the Supreme Court opined that judicial review being a basic and essential feature of the Constitution, it cannot be abrogated without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution. But their Lordships opined that the Parliament is competent to amend the Constitution for setting up an effective alternative institutional mechanism or Tribunal for judicial review provided it is not less efficacious than the High Court. In that view of the matter their Lordships held that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Clause 3 of Article 371-D of the Constitution an alternative arrangement for judicial review was not less effective or efficacious than the High Court.

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.

51. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I feel that an authoritative pronouncement is required preferably by a Larger Bench, on the following issues:

1. Whether Article 371-D of the Constitution is intra vires and does not affect the basic structure of Constitution of India in the light of the judgment in L. Chandrakumar's case (supra).

2.(a) Whether Clause-4 of the A.P. Educational Institutions Admissions Order, 1974 in fixing the local area of a student on the basis of his stay in a particular local area without reference to his actual residence is valid in the light of the law of the land as laid down by the Superior Courts with regard to place of residence;