Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In any case, while undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the Court would make an attempt to see that the statute is saved as far as possible, either by examining the entries in the List-I or List-II or List-III of the Seventh Schedule by applying the principles of pith and substance and thereafter even if the statute, literally read and interpreted, goes in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution or is unable to HC-NIC Page 6 of 74 Created On Fri Oct 09 01:59:23 IST 2015 satisfy the test of Article 14, the Court would read down the provision in order to make it rational or in order to maintain the basic structure of the Constitution. Thereafter, if the Court finds that reading down is not possible at all or the reading down of section would not serve the purpose, the Court may again try to save the statute by applying the principles of severance but while doing so, the Court would also ensure that the statute becomes operational, even thereafter and if neither of the situations is available, the Court may lean to strike down the provision as unconstitutional.

108.   The position of law summarized in the  foregoing   paragraph     constitutes   a  declaration   on   the   concept   of   the   "basic  structure",     with     reference     to   the  concepts   of   "separation   of   powers",   the  "rule     of     law",     and     "judicial   review".  Based   on   the   conclusions   summarized   above,  it  will  be  possible for us to answer the  first     issue     projected     before     us,  HC-NIC Page 42 of 74 Created On Fri Oct 09 01:59:23 IST 2015 namely,  whether "judicial review" is a part  of   the   "basic   structure"     of     the  Constitution. The answer has  inevitably  to  be  in  the  affirmative.   From  the  above  determination, the petitioners would like us  to   further   conclude,     that     the   power   of  "judicial   review"   stands   breached   with   the  promulgation of the  NTT Act.  This Court in  Minerva Mills Ltd. case (supra)  held,  that  it  should not be taken, that  an  effective  alternative     institutional     mechanism     or  arrangement for "judicial review" could not  be     made     by     Parliament.      The   same  position   was   reiterated   in   S.P.   Sampath  Kumar     case     (supra),     namely,   that  "judicial   review"   was   an   integral   part   of  the "basic structure" of   the Constitution.  All   the   same   it   was   held,   that   Parliament  was     competent     to   amend   the   Constitution,  and substitute in place of the High   Court,  another alternative institutional  mechanism  (court     or     tribunal).       It     would     be  pertinent     to     mention,     that     in     so  concluding,     this       Court       added       a  forewarning,     that     the     alternative  institutional     mechanism     set     up       by  Parliament   through   an   amendment,   had   to   be  no   less   effective   than     the     High   Court  itself.   In L. Chandra Kumar case   (supra),  even     though     this     Court   held   that   the  power of "judicial review" over legislative  action   vested   in High Courts, was a part  of the "basic structure", it   went   on   to  conclude   that   "ordinarily"   the   power     of  High  Courts  to  test  the  constitutional  validity   of   legislations   could   never   be  ousted.   All the  same it   was   held, that  the powers vested in High Courts to exercise  judicial     superintendence   over     decisions  of     all     courts     and     tribunals     within  their   respective jurisdictions,  was  also  a  part  of  the   "basic   structure"   of  the   Constitution.     The   position   that  Parliament  had  the  power  to  amend  the  Constitution, and to create a court/tribunal  to     discharge     functions     which   the   High  HC-NIC Page 43 of 74 Created On Fri Oct 09 01:59:23 IST 2015 Court   was   discharging,   was   reiterated,   in  Union   of   India   v.     Madras   Bar   Association  case (supra).   It was concluded,   that   the  Parliament     was   competent   to   enact   a   law,  transferring the jurisdiction  exercised  by  High   Courts,   in   regard   to   any   specified  subject,   to   any   court/tribunal.       But     it  was   clarified,   that   Parliament   could   not  transfer power vested in   the   High Courts,  by  the   Constitution   itself.     We    therefore  have     no     hesitation     in   concluding,   that  appellate   powers   vested   in   the   High   Court  under     different   statutory   provisions,   can  definitely   be   transferred   from   the   High  Court  to other courts/tribunals, subject to  the   satisfaction     of     norms     declared     by  this   Court.     Herein   the   jurisdiction  transferred   by   the     NTT     Act     was     with  regard   to   specified   subjects   under     tax  related  statutes.   That,  in  our opinion,  would   be   permissible   in   terms     of     the  position  expressed  above.  Has the NTT Act  transferred   any   power   vested   in   courts   by  the     Constitution?   The   answer   is   in   the  negative.       The power of "judicial review" 

of   the   Constitution   has   one   overall  exception, which  undoubtedly  is,  that the  "basic   structure"   of   the   Constitution,  cannot be  infringed,  no  matter what.   On  the     instant     aspect,     some     relevant  judgments,     rendered       by   constitutional  benches of this   Court,   have   been   cited  hereinabove.       It   seems   to   us,   that   there  is     a     fine     difference     in     what     the  petitioners   contend,   and   what   the  respondents seek to project.  The submission  advanced at the hands of the learned counsel  for   the   petitioners   does   not   pertain     to  lack     of     jurisdiction     or     inappropriate  exercise  of  jurisdiction.   The submission  advanced at the hands of the learned counsel  for   the    petitioners  pointedly   is,   that   it  is impermissible to legislate in   a   manner  as   would violate   the   "basic   structure" 

of   the   Constitution.     This   Court     has  repeatedly   held,   that   an   amendment   to   the  provisions  of  the  Constitution, would not  be   sustainable     if     it     violated     the  "basic     structure"     of     the   Constitution,  even   though   the   amendment   had   been   carried  out,     by     following   the   procedure  contemplated   under   "Part   XI"   of   the  Constitution.     This     leads   to   the  determination,   that   the   "basic     structure"