Question

Assertion (A): The Chandra Kumar case (1997) restored the jurisdiction of High Courts over appeals from the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Reason (R): The Supreme Court held that judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

• A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
• B. A is true, but R is false.
• C. A is false, but R is true
• D. Both A and R are false.

Answer 1

Answer:

A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.

Background of Administrative Tribunals in India

• The concept of administrative tribunals was introduced in India to provide speedy and inexpensive justice to government employees regarding service-related matters.
• Part XIV-A of the Indian Constitution, specifically Articles 323A and 323B, empowers the Parliament and State Legislatures to establish administrative tribunals.
• Article 323A pertains to administrative tribunals for public services and posts under the Union and State Governments.
• Article 323B deals with tribunals for other matters, such as taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labour, land reforms, etc.
• The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted to establish the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals.

The Chandra Kumar Case (1997) - Key Judgements

• Case Name: S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) is a landmark case related to the basic structure doctrine, but the assertion refers to the Chandra Kumar case. The actual case name relevant here is Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Jain & Ors. (1993), often cited in discussions related to CAT's jurisdiction, and later solidified by the S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India (1987) case, which was re-examined in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997).
• Restoration of High Court Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court in the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997) held that the High Courts' power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded.
• Appeals from CAT: Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that appeals against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) lie before the Division Bench of the High Courts. This effectively restored the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts over administrative tribunals.
• Rationale: The Court emphasized that the exclusion of judicial review by High Courts would violate the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
• Significance for Competitive Exams: This case is crucial as it balances the objective of speedy disposal of service matters by tribunals with the fundamental right of citizens to approach the High Courts for judicial review. It clarifies the hierarchical structure of dispute resolution in administrative matters.

Basic Structure Doctrine

• Origin: The doctrine of basic structure was propounded by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
• Core Principle: It states that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental features or 'basic structure'.
• Examples of Basic Structure: This includes principles like the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, the secular character of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, and the power of judicial review.
• Judicial Review as Basic Structure: The L. Chandra Kumar case reiterated and reinforced that judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Impact and Importance

• The Chandra Kumar case ensured that while administrative tribunals provide specialized and efficient redressal, the ultimate constitutional safeguard through judicial review by the High Courts remains intact.
• This judgment prevents the erosion of fundamental rights and ensures accountability of administrative bodies.