Question

Which of the following statements are correct about the Chandra Kumar case (1997)?

i. It declared the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Articles 323A and 323B unconstitutional.

ii. It allowed appeals against CAT orders to be made to the Division Bench of the concerned High Court.

iii. It upheld the restriction that appeals against CAT orders could only be made to the Supreme Court.

iv. It emphasized that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

v. It ruled that SATs cannot exercise original jurisdiction over state government employees.

• A. i, ii, and iv
• B. i, iii, and v
• C. ii, iii, and iv
• D. i, ii, and v

Answer 1

Answer:

A. i, ii, and iv

Chandra Kumar Case (1997) and Administrative Tribunals

Background and Context:

• The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted to provide for the adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority or any public institution.
• This Act led to the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs).
• A key feature of these tribunals was the exclusion of the jurisdiction of High Courts and other civil courts in matters falling under their purview.

Key Rulings and Implications of the Chandra Kumar Case:

• Declaration of Exclusion of High Court Jurisdiction as Unconstitutional: The Supreme Court declared that the exclusion of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, as provided by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was unconstitutional. This was a significant judgment as it restored the supervisory role of the High Courts.
• Appeals to the Division Bench of High Courts: The judgment permitted appeals against the orders of the Principal Bench and other benches of the CAT to be made to the Division Bench of the concerned High Court. This provided an additional layer of judicial review.
• Upholding Judicial Review as a Basic Structure: The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated or abrogated. This reinforced the principle that the courts have the power to examine the legality of administrative actions.
• Impact on SATs: While the case primarily dealt with the CAT, its principles have implications for SATs as well, emphasizing the overarching constitutional safeguards.

Relevance for Competitive Exams:

• Constitutional Law: Understanding the basic structure doctrine and the scope of judicial review is crucial.
• Administrative Law: Knowledge of administrative tribunals, their powers, and limitations is important.
• Landmark Judgments: Cases like Chandra Kumar are frequently cited in questions related to fundamental rights, judicial review, and the powers of constitutional bodies.