Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Supreme Court in P. SAMBAMURTHY AND ORS. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR., AIR 1987 SC 663. has struck down Clause (5) of Article 371D of the Constitution on the ground that it is violative of the basic structures doctrine. Clause (5) of Article 371D of the Constitution subjected the order of the Administrative Tribunal to the decision of the State Government. While striking down the said provision, the Supreme Court has observed thus:

"4. It is obvious from what we have stated above that this power of modifying or annulling an order of the Administrative, Tribunal conferred on the State Government under the proviso to Clause (5) is violative of the Rule of Law which, is clearly a basic and essential feature of the Constitution. It is a basic principle of the Rule of Law that the exercise of power by the executive or any other authority must not only be conditioned by the Constitution but must also be in accordance with law and the power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution with a view to ensuring that the law is observed and there is compliance with the requirement of law on the part of the executive and other authorities. It is through the power of judicial review conferred on an independent institutional authority such as the High Court that the Rule of Law is maintained and every organ of the State is kept within the limits of the law. Now if the exercise of the power of judicial review can be set at naught by the State Government by overriding the decision given against it, it would sound the death knell of the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law would ceased to have any meaning because then it would be open to the State Government to defy the law and yet to get away with it. The proviso to Clause (5) of Article 371D is therefore, clearly violative of the basis structure doctrine,
5.....This constitutional amendment authorising exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court and vesting of such jurisdiction in the Administrative Tribunal postulates for its validity that the Administrative Tribunal must be as effective an institutional mechanism or authority for judicial review as the High Court. If the Administrative Tribunal is less effective and efficacious than the High Court in the matter of judicial review in respect of the specified service matters, the constitutional amendment would fall foul of the basic structure doctrine. Now it can hardly be disputed that the provision enacted in proviso to Clause (5) of Article 371D deprives the Administrative Tribunal of its effectiveness and efficacy because it enables the State Government which is a party to the litigation before the Administrative Tribunal to override the decision given by the Administrative Tribunal.....In the circumstances the conclusion is inescapable that the Proviso to Clause (5) of Article 371D by which power has been conferred on the State Government to modify or annul the final order of the Administrative Tribunal is violative of the basic structure doctrine since it is that which makes the Administrative Tribunal a less effective and efficacious institutional mechanism or authority for judicial review and it is only by striking down that provision as being outside the constituent power of Parliament that Clauses (3) to (8) of Article 371D can be sustained. We must, therefore, hold that the Proviso to Clause (5) of Article 371D is unconstitutional as being ultra vires the amending power of Parliament and if the Proviso goes, the main part of Clause (5) must also fall along with it, since it is closely inter-related with the proviso and cannot have any rationale for its existence apart from the proviso. The main part of Clause (5) of Article 371D would, therefore, also have to be declared unconstitutional and void."