Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On the other hand, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondents 6 to 9 submitted that respondents 6 to 9 were the voters in the election to the Zilla Panchayat. They cannot maintain an election petition as they are not the members of the Zilla Panchayat. If the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the voter, who is not a member of Zilla Panchayat and aggrieved by the election of the Adhyaksha, will remain remediless. He submits that judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution.

11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that in spite of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in view of the bar contained in clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution. It was argued that the aggrieved person will have to avail himself the remedy provided in Rule 7 and cannot approach the High Court in the first instance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. We do not find any merit in this contention. We are of the view that a voter in a particular panchayat cannot be rendered remediless if he is aggrieved by the election of the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat. In His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225, a thirteen Judge Bench of this Court held that Article 368 of the Constitution does not enable the Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered by any constitutional amendment and it was held in unambiguous terms that one of the basic features is the existence of constitutional system in judicial review. This view was followed by a Constitution Bench in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 625. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261, a seven Judge Bench of this Court has held that jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and tribunals may perform a supplementary role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It has been held as under:

“We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded.” In I.R. Coelho (dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1, a Bench of nine Judges has again held that power of judicial review is the part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The power to amend cannot be equated with the power to frame the Constitution.

13. It is thus clear that power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. However, it is left to the discretion of the court exercising the power under Articles 226/227 to entertain the writ petition.