Question

What is/are the major feature(s) of the Chandra Kumar case (1997)?

(i) It declared the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction over CAT orders unconstitutional.
(ii) It established that appeals against CAT orders must be made to the division bench of the concerned High Court.
(iii) It upheld the complete exclusion of Supreme Court jurisdiction over tribunal orders.

• A. only (i)
• B. only (ii)
• C. only (i) and (ii)
• D. all the above

Answer 1

Answer:

C. only (i) and (ii)

The L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India Case (1997)

• The L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India case, decided by a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1997, is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law concerning the powers of judicial review and the hierarchy of courts and tribunals.
• It significantly clarified the appellate structure for orders passed by various tribunals established in India.

Background: Administrative Tribunals

• Administrative Tribunals were introduced in India by the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which inserted Part XIV-A into the Constitution.
• Article 323A empowers Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of public servants.
• Article 323B empowers Parliament and state legislatures to establish tribunals for other matters, such as taxation, industrial and labour disputes, foreign exchange, land reforms, etc.
• The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 was enacted under Article 323A, leading to the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs).
• Initially, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, explicitly excluded the jurisdiction of all courts, except the Supreme Court (under Article 136 - Special Leave Petition), over the orders of these tribunals. This meant that a direct appeal to the Supreme Court was the only recourse against a tribunal's order.

Major Features and Rulings of the L. Chandra Kumar Case

• Declaration of Unconstitutionality: The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the provisions in Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d), as well as Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court (under Articles 226/227 and Article 32, respectively) over the decisions of tribunals.
• Reaffirmation of Judicial Review: The judgment held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts (under Articles 226 and 227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) is an integral part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Therefore, this power cannot be ousted or diluted by ordinary legislation or even by a constitutional amendment.
• Established Appellate Path: It mandated that appeals or challenges against the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs), as well as other tribunals, must first be made to a Division Bench of the concerned High Court under Articles 226 (writ jurisdiction) and 227 (supervisory jurisdiction).
• Supreme Court's Role: The ruling clarified that only after the High Court's decision can an aggrieved party approach the Supreme Court, either through an appeal or a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136. This ensures a proper judicial hierarchy and reduces the direct burden on the Supreme Court.

Impact and Significance

• This judgment restored the supervisory role of the High Courts over all tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, ensuring a robust system of judicial oversight.
• It reinforced the principle that tribunals are subordinate to High Courts, despite their specialized nature.
• The case is a cornerstone in upholding the independence of the judiciary and the basic structure doctrine, particularly regarding the power of judicial review.