Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Submissions of the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the Amending Act of 2017 is violative of the provisions of the Constitution. They have formulated their submissions and for the sake of convenience it has been put under the following headings:-
A. Violative of the Basic Structure of the Constitution:-
It is argued by the petitioners that the Amending Act of 2017, in effect, curtails the tenure of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Tribunal and it affects the service condition and that in turn has affected the independence of judicial functioning of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members and this amounts to tinkering with the basic structure. Tribunal being an independent body and under the provisions of the Act is required to adjudicate disputes primarily between the employees who are private citizens against the employer who is the State and a party in each case before the Tribunal, thus by bringing in the aforesaid Amendment the independence and the functionality of the Tribunal has been adversely affected and thus independence of the judiciary and adjudicating Authority/Tribunal, which is an essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution, has been affected, consequently the Amending Act of 2017 is violative of the provisions of the Constitution, thus bad.

It is also well settled that the burden is on the person who alleges that the law is violative of the fundamental rights or Constitutional provisions and thus the grounds raised by the petitioners shall be examined by the Court in light thereof and it shall examine the submissions under the heads as mentioned hereinabove first.

A. The violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution:-

First and foremost, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the law as amended has the effect of tampering with the basic structure. It has also been urged that the Tribunal is essentially an organ of the judiciary and is involved in dispensation of justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much stress that independence of the judiciary is the basic structure of the Constitution. Impartiality, independence fairness and reasonableness in decision making are the hallmarks of the judiciary and in case if this is to be achieved then the persons involved in making the decisions have to be insulated from the executive action both in terms of tenure by providing them security as well as freedom from ordinary monetary worries.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the decision of Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President Madras Bar Association, 2010 (11) SCC page 1 (supra) and has also taken the Court through various paragraphs from the decision of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India (supra) wherein the issue regarding the independence of judiciary has been recognized as the part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
"76. To express our opinion on the issue whether the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and in the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, we must first attempt to understand what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure was evolved in Kesavananda Bharati case [(1973) 4 SCC 225] . However, as already mentioned, that case did not lay down that the specific and particular features mentioned in that judgment alone would constitute the basic structure of our Constitution. Indeed, in the judgments of Shelat and Grover, JJ., Hegde and Mukherjea, JJ. and Jaganmohan Reddy, J., there are specific observations to the effect that their list of essential features comprising the basic structure of the Constitution are illustrative and are not intended to be exhaustive. In Indira Gandhi case [1975 Supp SCC 1] , Chandrachud, J. held that the proper approach for a Judge who is confronted with the question whether a particular facet of the Constitution is part of the basic structure, is to examine, in each individual case, the place of the particular feature in the scheme of our Constitution, its object and purpose, and the consequences of its denial on the integrity of our Constitution as a fundamental instrument for the governance of the country. (supra at pp. 751-752). This approach was specifically adopted by Bhagwati, J. in Minerva Mills case [(1980) 3 SCC 625] (at pp. 671-672) and is not regarded as the definitive test in this field of Constitutional Law."