law commission report no. 215- l. chandra kumar be revisited by larger bench of supreme court of...

8/18/2019 Law Commission Report No. 215- L. Chandra Kumar Be Revisited by Larger Bench of Supreme Court of India

1/72

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

LAWCOMMISSION

OFINDIA

L. Chandra Kumar be revisited by

Larger Bench of Supreme Court

Report No. 215

December 2008

LatestLaws.com


2/72

LatestLaws.com

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA RE!ORT NO. 215"

L. Chandra Kumar be re#$%$te& b'L(r)er *e+c, o- Spreme Cort

!re%e+te& to Dr /. R. *,(r&( 3+$o+M$+$%ter -or L( (+& 4%t$ce M$+$%tr' o- L((+& 4%t$ce Go#er+me+t o- I+&$( b' Dr 4%t$ce AR. L(%,m(+(+ C,($rm(+ L(Comm$%%$o+ o- I+&$( o+ 16t, &(' o- December 2008.

2

LatestLaws.com


3/72

LatestLaws.com

T,e 18t, L( Comm$%%$o+ (% co+%t$tte& -or (per$o& o- t,ree 'e(r% -rom 1%t September 2007 b'Or&er No. A.50129192007:A&m+.III LA" &(te& t,e17t, October 2007 $%%e& b' t,e Go#er+me+t o-

I+&$( M$+$%tr' o- L( (+& 4%t$ce Dep(rtme+t o- Le)(; A--($r% Ne De;,$.

T,e L( Comm$%%$o+ co+%$%t% o- t,e C,($rm(+t,e Member:Secret(r' o+e -;;:t$me Member (+&%e#e+ p(rt:t$me Member%.

C,($rm(+

/o+


4/72

LatestLaws.com

T,e L( Comm$%%$o+ $% ;oc(te& $+ ILI *$;&$+)2+& F;oor *,()(+ D(% Ro(&Ne De;,$:110 001

L( Comm$%%$o+ St(--

Member:Secret(r'

Dr *r(,m A. A)r((;

Re%e(rc, St(--

S,r$ S%,$; =m(r > 4o$+t Secret(r' ? L(O--$cer M%. !((+ S,(rm( > A&&$t$o+(; L(O--$cer S,r$ 4. T. S;(@(+ R(o > A&&$t$o+(; L( O--$cer S,r$ A. =. 3p(&,'(' > Dept' L( O--$cer Dr V. =. S$+), > A%%$%t(+t Le)(;A$%er

A&m$+$%tr(t$#e St(--

S,r$ S%,$; =m(r > 4o$+t Secret(r' ? L(O--$cer

S,r$ D. C,o&,r' > 3+&er Secret(r'S,r$ S. =. *(% > Sect$o+ O--$cer Smt. R(+$ S,(rm( > A%%$%t(+t L$br(r' ?

I+-orm(t$o+ O--$cer

4

LatestLaws.com


5/72

LatestLaws.com

T,e te@t o- t,$% Report $% (#($;(b;e o+ t,e I+ter+et

(t ,ttp>99.;(comm$%%$o+o-$+&$(.+$c.$+

Go#er+me+t o- I+&$(L( Comm$%%$o+ o- I+&$(

T,e te@t $+ t,$% &ocme+t e@c;&$+) t,eGo#er+me+t Lo)o" m(' be repro&ce& -ree o- c,(r)e $+ (+' -orm(t or me&$m pro#$&e& t,(t $t $%repro&ce& (ccr(te;' (+& +ot %e& $+ (m$%;e(&$+) co+te@t. T,e m(ter$(; m%t be(c+o;e&)e& (% t,e Go#er+me+t o- I+&$(cop'r$),t (+& t,e t$t;e o- t,e &ocme+t %pec$-$e&.

A+' e+B$r$e% re;(t$+) to t,$% Report %,o;& be

(&&re%%e& to t,e Member:Secret(r' (+& %e+te$t,er b' po%t to t,e L( Comm$%%$o+ o- I+&$( 2+&

F;oor ILI *$;&$+) *,()(+ D(% Ro(& Ne De;,$:110001 I+&$( or b' em($; to ;c$:&;(+$c.$+

5

LatestLaws.com


6/72

LatestLaws.com

Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan ILI Building(IInd Floor),(Former Judge, Supreme ourt o! India) Bhag"andas Road,

hairman, La" ommission o! India #e" Delhi$%%& &&%

'el. %$%%$*++--/

Fa0 %$%%$*+++/1-

D2 #o. 1(+)3%-13*&&$L(LS) %Decem4er *&&

Dear Dr Bhard"a5 5i,

Su45ect L. Chandra Kumar be re#$%$te& b' L(r)er *e+c, o- Spreme Cort

I am !or"arding here"ith the *%/th Report o! the La"ommission o! India on the a4o6e su45ect.

A radical change "as 4rought a4out in the constitutional la"through section -1 o! the onstitution (Fort7$second Amendment)

Act, %1, "hich inserted ne" 8art 9I:A on ;'ri4unals< in theonstitution. Article +*+A empo"ers 8arliament to pro6ide, 47 la",!or the ad5udication or trial 47 administrati6e tri4unals o! disputesand complaints "ith respect to recruitment and conditions o! ser6iceo! persons appointed to pu4lic ser6ices and posts in connection "iththe a!!airs o! the =nion or o! an7 State. 'he la" ma7 pro6ide !or theesta4lishment o! an administrati6e tri4unal !or the =nion and aseparate administrati6e tri4unal !or each State or !or t"o or moreStates. 'he la" ma7 take out ad5udication o! disputes relating toser6ice matters !rom the hands o! the ci6il courts and the >ighourts.

8ursuant to the pro6isions o! article +*+A, 8arliament enactedthe Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act, %/ (Act) to esta4lish an

Administrati6e 'ri4unal !or the =nion, 6i?., the entral

6

LatestLaws.com


7/72

LatestLaws.com

Administrati6e 'ri4unal and a separate Administrati6e 'ri4unal !or aState or a Joint Administrati6e 'ri4unal !or t"o or more States. 'heesta4lishment o! Administrati6e 'ri4unals 4ecame necessar7 sincea large num4er o! cases relating to ser6ice matters "ere pending4e!ore 6arious courts. It "as e0pected that the setting up o! the

Administrati6e 'ri4unals "ould not onl7 reduce the 4urden o! courts,4ut "ould also pro6ide speed7 relie! to the aggrie6ed pu4licser6ants.

In S. P. Sampath Kumar @(%/) - S -/, the Supremeourt directed the carr7ing out o! certain measures "ith a 6ie" toensuring the !unctioning o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals alongconstitutionall7 sound principles. 'he changes "ere 4rought a4outin the Act 47 an amending Act (Act % o! %1). Jurisdiction o! the

Supreme ourt under article +* "as restored. onstitutional 6alidit7o! the Act "as !inall7 upheld in S. P. Sampath Kumar @(%) % S%*- su45ect, o! course, to certain amendments relating to the !ormand content o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals. 'he suggestedamendments "ere carried out 47 another amending Act (Act /% o! %).

'hus 4ecame the Administrati6e 'ri4unals an e!!ecti6e andreal su4stitute !or the >igh ourts.

In %, a se6en$Judge Bench o! the Supreme ourt in L.Chandra Kumar @J' % (+) S / held that clause * (d) o! article +*+A and clause +(d) o! article +*+B, to the e0tent the7empo"er 8arliament to e0clude the 5urisdiction o! the >igh ourtsand the Supreme ourt under articles **13** and +* o! theonstitution, are unconstitutional. Section * o! the Act and thee0clusion o! 5urisdictionC clauses in all other legislations enactedunder the aegis o! articles +*+A and +*+B "ould, to the samee0tent, 4e unconstitutional. 'he ourt held that the 5urisdictioncon!erred upon the >igh ourts under articles **13** and upon

the Supreme ourt under article +* o! the onstitution is part o! thein6iola4le 4asic structure o! our onstitution. All decisions o! the

Administrati6e 'ri4unals are su45ect to scrutin7 4e!ore a Di6isionBench o! the >igh ourt "ithin "hose 5urisdiction the 'ri4unalconcerned !alls.

7

LatestLaws.com


8/72

LatestLaws.com

As a result, orders o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals are 4eingroutinel7 appealed against in >igh ourts, "hereas this "as not theposition prior to the L. Chandra Kumar igh ourt to 4ring the Act in line "ith L. Chandra Kumar . 'he Department$related8arliamentar7 Standing ommittee on 8ersonnel, 8u4licErie6ances, La" and Justice in its %th Report on the said Bill didnot su4scri4e to the same and as !or the pro6ision !or appeal to>igh ourt e0pressed the 6ie" that the original conception o! the

Administrati6e 'ri4unals 4e restored and appeal to >igh ourt isunnecessar7, and that i! a statutor7 appeal is to 4e pro6ided itshould lie to the Supreme ourt onl7.

In the a4o6e 4ackdrop, the La" ommission took up the stud7on the su45ect suo motu. 'he Administrati6e 'ri4unals "ereconcei6ed as and constitute an e!!ecti6e and real su4stitute !or the>igh ourts as regards ser6ice matters. oreo6er, the po"er o!

5udicial re6ie" o! the >igh ourts cannot 4e called as in6iola4le asthat o! the Supreme ourt. 'he 6er7 o45ecti6e 4ehind the

esta4lishment o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals is de!eated i! all thecases ad5udicated 47 them ha6e to go 4e!ore the concerned >ighourts. I! one appeal is considered to 4e a must, an intra$tri4unalappeal "ould 4e the 4est option, and then the matter can 4e takento the Supreme ourt 47 "a7 o! special lea6e petition under article%+1. 'he La" ommission is o! the 6ie" that L. Chandra Kumar


9/72

LatestLaws.com

(AR. Lakshmanan)

Dr >.R. Bhard"a5,=nion inister !or La" and Justice,Eo6ernment o! India,Shastri Bha"an,Ne De;,$:110 001

9

LatestLaws.com


10/72

LatestLaws.com

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

L. CHANDRA KUMAR *E REVISITED *

LARGER *ENC/ OF S3!REME CO3RT

TA*LE OF CONTENTS

%. I#'R2D='I2#%&

*. BAHER2=#D 2F '> ADI#IS'RA'I: %

'RIB=#ALS A' %/

+. LA 2ISSI2# ADI#IS'RA'I: 'RIB=#ALS++

(A#D#') A' *&&1 (% o! *&&) A#D'> ADI#IS'RA'I: 'RIB=#ALS(A#D#') BILL *&&1

/. FR2 S. P. SAMPATH KUMAR '2-&

L. CHANDRA KUMAR A#D'> I8LIA'I2#S

1. '> ARD F2RS 'RIB=#AL A' *&&

//

. ADI#IS'RA'I: 'RIB=#ALS SS#'IAL 1%

. 2#L=SI2# A#D R2#DA'I2#S11

10

LatestLaws.com


11/72

LatestLaws.com

1. INTROD3CTION

1.1 With a view to easing the congestion of pending cases in various

High ourts and other courts in the countr!" #ar$ia%ent had enacted the

&d%inistrative 'ri(una$s &ct 1985 which" insofar as its provisions re$ate

to the entra$ &d%inistrative 'ri(una$" ca%e into force on 1st )u$! 1985.

'he entra$ &d%inistrative 'ri(una$ was esta($ished with effect fro% 2 nd

*cto(er 1985. +enches of the entra$ &d%inistrative 'ri(una$ are $ocated

at 17 p$aces throughout the countr!. ,tate &d%inistrative 'ri(una$s have

a$so (een esta($ished in certain ,tates.

1.2 'he &d%inistrative 'ri(una$s were esta($ished for ad-udication of

disputes with respect to recruit%ent" %atters concerning recruit%ent and

conditions of service of persons appointed to civi$ services and posts in

connection with the affairs of the nion or of an! ,tate or of an! $oca$ or

other authorit! under the contro$ of the /overn%ent or of an! corporation

or societ! owned or contro$$ed (! the /overn%ent. 'his was done in

pursuance of the provisions of artic$e 323& inserted in the onstitution (!

section 46 of the onstitution ort!second &%end%ent &ct 1976. n the

,tate%ent of *(-ects and easons for introducing the +i$$ for the

&d%inistrative 'ri(una$s &ct 1985" it was %entioned that the setting up of

such &d%inistrative 'ri(una$s to dea$ ec$usive$! with service %atters

wou$d go a $ong wa! in not on$! reducing the (urden of the various courts

and there(! giving the% %ore ti%e to dea$ with other cases epeditious$!

11

LatestLaws.com


12/72

LatestLaws.com

(ut wou$d a$so provide to the persons covered (! the &d%inistrative

'ri(una$s speed! re$ief in respect of their grievance. 'he provisions of the

&d%inistrative 'ri(una$s &ct 1985 do not app$! to %e%(ers of the %i$itar!

or an! para%i$itar! force" officers or e%p$o!ees of the ,upre%e ourt or

an! High ourt or courts su(ordinate thereto" persons appointed to the

secretaria$ staff of either House of #ar$ia%ent or an! ,tate egis$ature. &

person who is" or has (een" a )udge of a High ourt heads an

&d%inistrative 'ri(una$ as its hair%an.

1.3 &fter the constitution of the entra$ &d%inistrative 'ri(una$ in

1985" in the (eginning" under section 29 of the &d%inistrative 'ri(una$s

&ct 1985" the 'ri(una$ received on transfer fro% the High ourts and

su(ordinate courts 13"350 cases" which were pending there. 'hereafter" ti$$

ove%(er 2001" 3"71"448 cases were instituted in the 'ri(una$. *ut of

these" 3"33"598 cases have a$read! (een disposed of. 'he tota$ nu%(er of

cases received on transfer as we$$ as those instituted direct$! at various

+enches of the 'ri(una$ ti$$ 30.06.2006 is 4"76"336 of which the 'ri(una$

has disposed of 4"51"751 cases $eaving a (a$ance of 24"585 cases" which

constitutes disposa$ of 94. 'he institution of cases in the 'ri(una$ has

increased tre%endous$! (ut the rate of disposa$ of the cases has a$so

:uantitative$! increased and in the #rincipa$ +ench of the 'ri(una$ at ew

;e$hi" the disposa$ is 94. ;uring the !ear 2000" over 91 of cases of the

#rincipa$ +ench of the 'ri(una$ have (een uphe$d in writ petition (! the

;e$hi High ourt and so :ua$itative$! a$so the 'ri(una$ has perfor%ed

we$$.1

1 http


13/72

LatestLaws.com

%.- 'he enactment o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/

opened a ne" chapter in the sphere o! administering 5ustice to the

aggrie6ed Eo6ernment ser6ants in ser6ice matters. 'he setting up

o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals is !ounded on the premise thatspecialist 4odies comprising 4oth trained administrators and those

"ith 5udicial e0perience "ould, 47 6irtue o! their speciali?ed

kno"ledge, 4e 4etter eKuipped to dispense speed7 and e!!icient

5ustice. It "as e0pected that a 5udicious mi0 o! 5udicial mem4ers and

those "ith grass$root e0perience "ould 4est ser6e this purpose.*

%./ 'he Administrati6e 'ri4unals are distinguisha4le !rom the

ordinar7 courts "ith regard to their 5urisdiction and procedure. 'he7

e0ercise 5urisdiction onl7 in relation to the ser6ice matters o! the

litigants co6ered 47 the Act. 'he7 are also !ree !rom the shackles o!

man7 o! the technicalities o! the ordinar7 courts. 'he procedural

simplicit7 o! the Act can 4e appreciated !rom the !act that the

aggrie6ed person can also appear 4e!ore it personall7. 'heEo6ernment can also present its case through its Departmental

o!!icers or legal practitioners. Further, onl7 a nominal !ee o! Rs./&3$

is to 4e paid 47 the litigant !or !iling an application 4e!ore the

'ri4unal @Rule o! the entral Administrati6e 'ri4unal (8rocedure)

Rules %. 'hus, the o45ecti6e o! the 'ri4unal is to pro6ide speed7

and ine0pensi6e 5ustice to the litigants.+

2 ;epart%entre$ated #ar$ia%entar! ,tanding o%%ittee on #ersonne$" #u($ic/rievances" aw and )ustice" ,eventeenth eport on the &d%inistrative 'ri(una$s&%end%ent +i$$" 2006" ;ece%(er 2006" paragraph 63 (id." paragraph 6.1

13

LatestLaws.com


14/72

LatestLaws.com

%.1 Administrati6e ad5udication, "hich is Kuasi$5udicial in nature, is

the main !unction o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals. 'he 4asic

o45ecti6e o! enacting the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ "as

i) to relie6e congestion in the ordinar7 courts and

ii) to pro6ide !or speed7 disposal o! disputes relating to

ser6ice matters.-

%. 'he esta4lishment o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals "as a right

step in the direction o! pro6iding an e!!ecti6e alternati6e authorit7 to

Eo6ernment emplo7ees "ho !eel aggrie6ed 47 the decisions o! the

Eo6ernment, in spite o! the ela4orate s7stem o! rules and

regulations "hich go6ern personnel management, !or 5udicial re6ie"

o6er ser6ice matters to the e0clusion o! all courts including >igh

ourts other than the Supreme ourt, "ith the end in 6ie" o!

reducing the 4urden o! such ourts and o! securing e0peditious

disposal o! such matters./

%. 'he Supreme ourt has on man7 occasions e0amined the

constitutional 6alidit7 o! the 6arious pro6isions o! the Administrati6e

'ri4unals Act %/. In S. P. Sampath Kumar v. UO 1, the Supreme

ourt directed the carr7ing out o! certain measures "ith a 6ie" to

ensuring the !unctioning o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals along

constitutionall7 sound principles. 'he changes "ere 4rought a4out

4 ;epart%entre$ated #ar$ia%entar! ,tanding o%%ittee on #ersonne$" #u($ic/rievances" aw and )ustice" irst eport on ;e%ands for /rants 20042005 of the>inistr! of #ersonne$" #u($ic /rievances and #ensions" &ugust 2004" paragraph 28.15 Supra note 2" paragraph 6.26 1985 4 , 458

14

LatestLaws.com


15/72

LatestLaws.com

in the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ 47 an amending Act (Act %

o! %1). Jurisdiction o! the Supreme ourt under article +* o! the

onstitution "as restored. onstitutional 6alidit7 o! the Act "as

!inall7 upheld in the said case

, su45ect, o! course, to certainamendments relating to the !orm and content o! the Administrati6e

'ri4unals. 'he suggested amendments "ere carried out 47 another

amending Act (Act /% o! %). 'hus 4ecame the Administrati6e

'ri4unals an e!!ecti6e and real su4stitute !or the >igh ourts.

%. But, in %, a se6en$Judge onstitution Bench in L. Chandra

Kumar v. UO held as under

;In 6ie" o! the reasoning adopted 47 us, "e hold that clause *

(d) o! Article +*+A and clause +(d) o! Article +*+B, to the

e0tent the7 e0clude the 5urisdiction o! the >igh ourts and the

Supreme ourt under Articles **13** and +* o! the

onstitution, are unconstitutional. Section * o! the Act andthe e0clusion o! 5urisdictionC clauses in all other legislations

enacted under the aegis o! Articles +*+A and +*+B "ould, to

the same e0tent, 4e unconstitutional. 'he 5urisdiction

con!erred upon the >igh ourts under Articles **13** and

upon the Supreme ourt under Article +* o! the onstitution is

part o! the in6iola4le 4asic structure o! our onstitution. hile

this 5urisdiction cannot 4e ousted, other courts and 'ri4unals

ma7 per!orm a supplemental role in discharging the po"ers

con!erred 47 Articles **13** and +* o! the onstitution. 'he

7 1987 1 , 1248 )' 1997 3 ,.. 589

15

LatestLaws.com


16/72

LatestLaws.com

'ri4unals created under Article +*+A and Article +*+B o! the

onstitution are possessed o! the competence to test the

constitutional 6alidit7 o! statutor7 pro6isions and rules. All

decisions o! these 'ri4unals "ill, ho"e6er, 4e su45ect toscrutin7 4e!ore a Di6ision Bench o! the >igh ourt "ithin

"hose 5urisdiction the concerned 'ri4unal !alls. 'he 'ri4unals

"ill, ne6ertheless, continue to act like ourts o! !irst instance

in respect o! the areas o! la" !or "hich the7 ha6e 4een

constituted. It "ill not, there!ore, 4e open !or litigants to

directl7 approach the >igh ourts e6en in cases "here the7

Kuestion the vires o! statutor7 legislations (e0cept "here the

legislation "hich creates the particular 'ri4unal is challenged)

47 o6erlooking the 5urisdiction o! the concerned 'ri4unal.

Section / (1) o! the Act is 6alid and constitutional and is to 4e

interpreted in the manner "e ha6e indicated.<

%.%& 'he onstitution Bench also addressed the issue o! thecompetence o! those "ho man the 'ri4unals and the Kuestion as to

"ho is to e0ercise administrati6e super6ision o6er them etc. and

made suggestions to impro6e the !unction o! the Administrati6e

'ri4unals.

%.%% As a result, orders o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals are 4eing

routinel7 appealed against in >igh ourts, "hereas this "as not the

position prior to the L. Chandra Kumar


17/72

LatestLaws.com

%.%* 2n %th arch *&&1, the Administrati6e 'ri4unals

(Amendment) Bill, *&&1 (Bill #o. 99:III o! *&&1) "as introduced in

Ra57a Sa4ha to amend the Act 47 incorporating therein, inter alia,

pro6isions contained in the proposed ne" hapters I:A and I:B,empo"ering the entral Eo6ernment to a4olish Administrati6e

'ri4unals, and !or appeal to >igh ourt to 4ring the Act in line "ith

L. Chandra Kumar . 'he Department$related 8arliamentar7 Standing

ommittee on 8ersonnel, 8u4lic Erie6ances, La" and Justice in its

Se6enteenth Report on the said Bill did not su4scri4e to the same

and as !or the pro6ision !or appeal to >igh ourt e0pressed the 6ie"

that the original conception o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals 4e

restored and appeal to >igh ourt is unnecessar7, and that i! a

statutor7 appeal is to 4e pro6ided it should lie to the Supreme ourt

onl7. In regard to the pro6ision proposing omission o! section % o!

the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ con!erring po"er on the

Administrati6e 'ri4unals to punish !or contempt, the ommittee "as

o! the 6ie" that in order to ensure implementation o! the orders o! the 'ri4unals, their ci6il contemptC po"ers should 4e retained.

%.%+ It ma7 4e noted that the Administrati6e 'ri4unals "ere

concei6ed as and constitute an e!!ecti6e and real su4stitute !or the

>igh ourts as regards ser6ice matters.

%.%- 'he La" ommission o! India in its /th Report on ;Stru!ture

and "urisdi!tion o# the Hi$her "udi!iar% < (%-) o4ser6ed

17

LatestLaws.com


18/72

LatestLaws.com

.*. 'he creation o! Special Ser6ice ourts in India ma7 M

pro6ide to the honest and e!!icient go6ernment ser6ant greater

and more e!!ecti6e protection against discrimination or

6ictimi?ation, than at present. M Furthermore, the creation o! ser6ice ourts ma7 reduce the gro"ing 6olume o! arrears in

the >igh ourts and the Supreme ourt, provided the% are

not made su&'e!t to the 'urisdi!tion o# the Hi$h Court under

Arti!le (() and o# the Supreme Court under Arti!les *++ and

*+) o# the Constitution.

M

.+%. But, i! the super6isor7 5urisdiction o! the >igh

ourt and the Supreme ourt remains intact, and the decision

o! the ser6ice ourt is su45ect to re6ie" 47 these higher

ourts, "e do not see ho" the creation o! Ser6ice ourts "ill

reduce the gro"ing 6olume o! arrears in these ourts.

M

.+*. M In our opinion, the e0isting legal and constitutionalposition a!!ords su!!icient protection. e do not, there!ore,

recommend the creation o! a separate Ser6ice 'ri4unal.C

%.%/ 'he La" ommission o! India in its %*-th Report on ;The Hi$h

Court Arrears , A -resh Loo < (%) took note o! the

recommendation o! 'he >igh ourts Arrears ommitteeC,

constituted in %1 under the chairmanship o! the then hie! Justice

o! India, >on


19/72

LatestLaws.com

%.%/. M It is here a germ !or the !irst time o! creating

specialist 'ri4unals as alternati6es to the >igh ourt "ith a

6ie" to curtailing the 5urisdiction o! the >igh ourt to controlthe in!lo" o! "ork "hich ma7 indirectl7 help in tackling the

pro4lem o! arrears and 4acklog o! cases.

M

%.*%. M 'he La" ommission is o! the !irm 6ie" that,

"here6er possi4le, proli!erating appellate and "ide original

5urisdiction should 4e controlled or curtailed "ithout impairing

the Kualit7 o! 5ustice.

M

%.*. 'o sum up, the approach o! the commission is to

reduce num4er o! appeals, to set up specialist

courts3tri4unals, simultaneousl7 eliminating the 5urisdiction o!

the >igh ourt "hich, "hen translated into action 47

implementing the reports su4mitted 47 the present La"ommission, "ould, on a 6er7 super!icial assessment, reduce

the in!lo" o! "ork into the >igh ourt 47 nearl7 -/N o! its

present in!lo".C

%.%1 In its %1*nd Report on ;Revie/ o# -un!tionin$ o# Central

Administrative Tri&unal0 Customs1 23!ise and 4old 5Control6

Appellate Tri&unal and n!ome7ta3 Appellate Tri&unal < (%), the

La" ommission o! India recommended that an appeal should 4e

pro6ided to the >igh ourt, to 4e necessaril7 heard 47 a Di6ision

Bench against the orders o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals, keeping in

19

LatestLaws.com


20/72

LatestLaws.com

6ie" the criticism against L. Chandra Kumar that there cannot 4e a

5udicial re6ie" o! an order passed 47 an authorit7 in e0ercise o! its

po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" (vide paragraph -./).

%.% #e6ertheless, the !act remains that the 6er7 o45ecti6e 4ehind

the esta4lishment o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals is de!eated i! all

the cases ad5udicated 47 them ha6e to go 4e!ore the concerned

>igh ourts. oreo6er, the po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" o! the >igh

ourts cannot 4e called as in6iola4le as that o! the Supreme ourt.

%.% In the light o! the a4o6e, the La" ommission o! India suo

motu took up the stud7 o! the su45ect to !ind out i! there is an7

option to end the impasse.

2. BAC!"O#N$ O% &'( A$MINIS&"A&I)( &"IB#NALS

AC& *+,-

*.% 'he Department$related 8arliamentar7 Standing ommittee

on 8ersonnel, 8u4lic Erie6ances, La" and Justice in its

Se6enteenth Report on the Administrati6e 'ri4unals (Amendment)

Bill *&&1 (as introduced in the Ra57a Sa4ha on %.&+.*&&1),

su4mitted to the 8arliament on /th Decem4er *&&1, descri4ed the

4ackground, o45ecti6e and signi!icance o! the Administrati6e

'ri4unals Act %/ in the !ollo"ing "ords

;/. 'he !ramers o! the onstitution o! India in their "isdom

in6ested the Supreme ourt and the 6arious >igh ourts "ith

the po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" 47 speci!icall7 enacting Articles

20

LatestLaws.com


21/72

LatestLaws.com

+*, %+1, **1 and ** o! the onstitution. ith the enactment

o! Articles %*, %-, %/, %1, +& and +%% in the onstitution, a

large num4er o! ser6ice matters calling !or the ad5udication o!

disputes relating to the recruitment and conditions o! ser6iceo! Eo6ernment ser6ants and also o! emplo7ees in other !ields

o! pu4lic emplo7ment started coming up 4e!ore the 6arious

>igh ourts "hose po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" "as in6oked !or

the said purpose 47 the aggrie6ed emplo7ees.

/.%. 'he >igh ourts pla7ed a de!inite and signi!icant role in

e6ol6ing the ser6ice 5urisprudence in the e0ercise o! their

po"er o! 5udicial re6ie". 'he positi6e contri4ution 47 the >igh

ourts made as a!oresaid, coupled "ith the gro"th in the

num4er o! emplo7ees in the pu4lic !ield and the mani!old

pro4lems arising in the conte0t o! their recruitment and

conditions o! ser6ice and their implicit !aith and con!idence in

the >igh ourts as the un!ailing protector o! their rights andhonour, led to a gradual increase in the institution and

pendenc7 o! ser6ice matters in the >igh ourts. 'his, in turn,

!ocused the attention o! the =nion Eo6ernment on the

pro4lem o! !inding an e!!ecti6e alternati6e institutional

mechanism !or the disposal o! such speciali?ed matters.

/.*. A ommittee set up 47 the =nion Eo6ernment in %1

under the hairmanship o! r. Justice J.. Shah

recommended !or setting up o! an independent 'ri4unal

to handle ser6ice matters pending 4e!ore the >igh

21

LatestLaws.com


22/72

LatestLaws.com

ourts and the Supreme ourt. In the %*-th Report o!

the La" ommission o! India, it "as cited that in

Australia, 'ri4unals outside the esta4lished courts ha6e

4een created Administrati6e Appeal 'ri4unals, Ar4itration 'ri4unals, orkers< ompensation 'ri4unals,

8ension 'ri4unals, 8lanning Appeal 'ri4unal, Kual

2pportunit7 'ri4unals, to name a !e". 'his acti6it7 o!

creating 'ri4unals is !ounded on a 4elie! that the

esta4lished ourts are too remote, too legalistic, too

e0pensi6e and, a4o6e all too slo".

/.+. 'he La" ommission o! India had recommended !or the

esta4lishment at the entre and the State o! an

appellate 'ri4unal or 'ri4unals presided o6er 47 a legall7

Kuali!ied hairman and "ith e0perienced ci6il ser6ants

as em4ers to hear appeals !rom Eo6ernment ser6ants

in respect o! disciplinar7 and other action against them.'he First Administrati6e Re!orms ommission had also

recommended !or the setting up o! i6il Ser6ices

'ri4unals to deal "ith the appeals o! Eo6ernment

ser6ants against disciplinar7 actions. Some o! the State

Legislatures thereupon enacted la"s setting up

'ri4unals to decide such cases. 8art 9I: A comprising

Articles +*+$A and +*+$B "as also inserted in the

onstitution o! India 47 the -*nd onstitutional

Amendment Bill, %1 "ith e!!ect !rom +rd Januar7 %.

Article +*+$A inter alia authori?ed 8arliament to pro6ide

22

LatestLaws.com


23/72

LatestLaws.com

47 la" !or setting up o! Administrati6e 'ri4unals !or the

ad5udication o! disputes and complaints "ith respect to

recruitment and conditions o! ser6ice o! certain

categories o! emplo7ees in the !ield o! pu4licemplo7ment including Eo6ernment ser6ants and also to

pro6ide !or the e0clusion o! the 5urisdiction o! all courts,

e0cept that o! the Supreme ourt under Article %+1, "ith

respect to disputes or complaints o! such nature. #o

immediate step "as, ho"e6er, taken in the direction o!

enacting a la" !or the setting up o! Administrati6e

'ri4unals as contemplated 47 the said Article.

/.-. =ltimatel7, 8arliament enacted the Administrati6e

'ri4unals Act, %/ "hich recei6ed the assent o! the

8resident on the *th Fe4ruar7 %/. In pursuance o!

the pro6isions contained in the Act, the Administrati6e

'ri4unals set up under it e0ercise original 5urisdiction inrespect o! ser6ice matters o! emplo7ees co6ered under

the Act.

Obect$#e o- t,e Act

/./. 'he Statement o! 245ects and Reasons accompan7ing

the onstitutional Amendment Bill 47 "hich Article +*+$A "as

sought to 4e inserted in the onstitution states the !ollo"ing

"ords

23

LatestLaws.com


24/72

LatestLaws.com

'o reduce the mounting arrears in >igh ourts and to secure

the speed7 disposal o! ser6ice mattersM.it is considered

e0pedient to pro6ide !or administrati6e tri4unals !or dealing

"ith such matters "hile preser6ing the 5urisdiction o! theSupreme ourt in regard to such matters under Article %+1 o!

the onstitution.C

/.1. 'he Statement o! 245ects and Reasons appended to the

introduced 6ersion o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Bill, "hich

on 4eing passed and appro6ed 4ecame the Act o! %/, also

contained similar recitals M..'he esta4lishment o!

Administrati6e 'ri4unals under the a!oresaid pro6ision o! the

onstitution has 4ecome necessar7 since a large num4er o!

cases relating to ser6ice matters are pending 4e!ore the

6arious ourts. It is e0pected that the setting up o! such

Administrati6e 'ri4unals to deal e0clusi6el7 "ith ser6ice

matters "ould go a long "a7 in not onl7 reducing the 4urdeno! the 6arious ourts and there47 gi6ing them more time to

deal "ith other cases e0peditiousl7 4ut "ould also pro6ide to

the persons co6ered 47 the Administrati6e 'ri4unals speed7

relie! in respect o! their grie6ances.C

/.. In pursuance o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act, %/,

the entral Administrati6e 'ri4unal "as set up on %.%%.%/.

At present, it has % regular Benches, %/ o! "hich operate at

the principal seats o! >igh ourts and the remaining t"o at

Jaipur and Luckno". 'hese Benches also hold circuit sittings

24

LatestLaws.com


25/72

LatestLaws.com

at other seats o! >igh ourts. 'he 'ri4unal consists o! a

hairman, a :ice hairman and em4ers. 'he :ice

hairman and em4ers are dra"n 4oth !rom 5udicial and

administrati6e spheres. State Administrati6e 'ri4unals "ereset up 47 the Eo6ernments o! the States o! Andhra 8radesh,

>imachal 8radesh, 2rissa, Harnataka, aharashtra, 'amil

#adu, adh7a 8radesh and est Bengal under the

Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act, %/.

/.. 'he appointment o! the hairman, entral

Administrati6e 'ri4unal, as per practice, is initiated 47 the

hie! Justice o! India on a re!erence made to this e!!ect 47 the

=nion Eo6ernment. 'he appointment o! :ice hairman and

em4ers in entral Administrati6e 'ri4unal are made on the

4asis o! recommendations o! a Selection ommittee chaired

47 a nominee o! the hie! Justice o! India, "ho is a sitting

5udge o! the Supreme ourt. 'he appointments are made"ith the appro6al o! Appointments ommittee o! the a4inet

a!ter o4taining the concurrence o! the hie! Justice o! India.

/.. 'he appointments to the 6acancies in State

Administrati6e 'ri4unals are made on the 4asis o! proposals

sent 47 the State Eo6ernments, "ith the appro6al o! the

Eo6ernors. 'herea!ter, their appointments undergo the same

process as the one in respect o! entral Administrati6e

'ri4unal.

25

LatestLaws.com


26/72

LatestLaws.com

S$)+$-$c(+ce o- t,e A&m$+$%tr(t$#e Tr$b+(;% Act 185

1. 'he enactment o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act, %/

opened a ne" chapter in the sphere o! administering 5ustice to

the aggrie6ed Eo6ernment ser6ants in ser6ice matters. 'he

Act pro6ides !or esta4lishment o! entral Administrati6e

'ri4unal and the State Administrati6e 'ri4unals. 'he setting$

up o! these 'ri4unals is !ounded on the premise that specialist

4odies comprising 4oth trained administrators and those "ith

5udicial e0perience "ould, 47 6irtue o! their speciali?ed

kno"ledge, 4e 4etter eKuipped to dispense speed7 and

e!!icient 5ustice. It "as e0pected that a 5udicious mi0 o! 5udicial

mem4ers and those "ith grass$root e0perience "ould 4est

ser6e this purpose.

1.%. 'he Administrati6e 'ri4unals are distinguisha4le !rom

the ordinar7 courts "ith regard to their 5urisdiction and

procedure. 'he7 e0ercise 5urisdiction onl7 in relation to the

ser6ice matters o! the litigants co6ered 47 the Act. 'he7 are

also !ree !rom the shackles o! man7 o! the technicalities o! the

ordinar7 ourts. 'he procedural simplicit7 o! the Act can 4e

appreciated !rom the !act that the aggrie6ed person can also

appear 4e!ore it personall7. 'he Eo6ernment can also

present its case through its Departmental o!!icers or legal

practitioners. Further, onl7 a nominal !ee o! Rs./&3$ is to 4e

paid 47 the litigant !or !iling an application 4e!ore the 'ri4unal

26

LatestLaws.com


27/72

LatestLaws.com

@Section o! the entral Administrati6e 'ri4unal (8rocedure)

Rules, %. 'hus, the o45ecti6e o! the 'ri4unal is to pro6ide

speed7 and ine0pensi6e 5ustice to the litigants.

1.*. 'he esta4lishment o! Administrati6e 'ri4unals "as a

right step in the direction o! pro6iding an e!!ecti6e alternati6e

authorit7 to Eo6ernment emplo7ees "ho !eel aggrie6ed 47 the

decisions o! the Eo6ernment, in spite o! the ela4orate s7stem

o! rules and regulations "hich go6ern personnel management,

!or 5udicial re6ie" o6er ser6ice matters to the e0clusion o! all

courts including >igh ourts other than the Supreme ourt,

"ith the end in 6ie" o! reducing the 4urden o! such ourts

and o! securing e0peditious disposal o! such matters.<

*.* In Kamal Kanti Dutta v. UO 8, the then hie! Justice o! India,

>on


28/72

LatestLaws.com

*.+ 'he Statement o! 245ects and Reasons o! the Bill "hich led to

the enactment o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ reads as

!ollo"s

Article +*+A o! the onstitution stipulates that8arliament ma7, 47 la", pro6ide !or the ad5udication or trial 47

Administrati6e 'ri4unal o! disputes and complaints "ithrespect to recruitment and conditions o! ser6ice o! personsappointed to pu4lic ser6ices and posts in connection "ith thea!!airs o! the =nion or o! an7 State or o! an7 local or other authorit7 "ithin the territor7 o! India or under the control o! theEo6ernment o! India or o! an7 orporation o"ned or controlled 47 the Eo6ernment.

*. 'he Bill seeks to gi6e e!!ect to the a!oresaidconstitutional pro6ision 47 pro6iding !or the esta4lishment o! an Administrati6e 'ri4unal !or the =nion and a separate

Administrati6e 'ri4unal !or a State or a Joint Administrati6e'ri4unal !or t"o or more States. 'he Bill also pro6ides !or$

(a) the 5urisdiction, po"ers (including the po"er to

punish !or contempt) and authorit7 "hich ma7 4ee0ercised 47 each 'ri4unal

(4) the procedure (including pro6ision as to limitationand rules o! e6idence) to 4e !ollo"ed 47 the State'ri4unals

(c) e0clusion o! the 5urisdiction o! all courts, e0ceptthat o! the Supreme ourt under article %+1 o! theonstitution relating to ser6ice matters

(d) the trans!er to each Administrati6e 'ri4unal o! an7suit or other proceedings pending 4e!ore an7 court

or other authorit7 immediatel7 4e!ore theesta4lishment o! such 'ri4unal as "ould ha6e4een "ithin the 5urisdiction o! such 'ri4unal i! thecauses o! action on "hich such suits or proceedings are 4ased had arisen a!ter suchesta4lishment.

28

LatestLaws.com


29/72

LatestLaws.com

+. 'he esta4lishment o! Administrati6e 'ri4unal under the a!oresaid pro6ision o! the onstitution has 4ecomenecessar7 since a large num4er o! cases relating to ser6icematers are pending 4e!ore the 6arious courts. It is e0pectedthat the setting up o! such Administrati6e 'ri4unals to deale0clusi6el7 "ith ser6ice matters "ould go a long "a7 in notonl7 reducing the 4urden o! the 6arious courts and there47gi6ing them more time to deal "ith other cases e0peditiousl74ut "ould also pro6ide to the persons co6ered 47 the

Administrati6e 'ri4unals speed7 relie! in respect o! their grie6ances.C

*.- Section **(%) o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/

pro6ides that the 'ri4unal shall not 4e 4ound 47 the procedure laid

do"n in the ode o! i6il 8rocedure, %& 4ut shall 4e guided 47

the principles o! natural 5ustice and su45ect to the other pro6isions o!

the Act and o! an7 rules made 47 the entral Eo6ernment, the

'ri4unal shall ha6e po"er to regulate its o"n procedure including

the !i0ing o! places and times o! its inKuir7 and deciding "hether to

sit in pu4lic or in pri6ate.

*./ Section * o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act e0cludes

5urisdiction o! all courts e0cept the 5urisdiction o! the Supreme ourt,

as en6isaged under su4$clause (d) o! clause (*) o! the Article +*+A

o! the onstitution. Accordingl7, the 5urisdiction o! >igh ourts

under articles **13** as regards ser6ice matters is e0cluded 47

the Act.

29

LatestLaws.com


30/72

LatestLaws.com

. LAW COMMISSIONigh ourts

ma7 interpret di!!erentl7 an7 statutor7 pro6ision concerning the

10 Supra paragraph 1.16

30

LatestLaws.com


31/72

LatestLaws.com

ser6ice conditions go6erning the emplo7ees. 'hus the lack o!

uni!ormit7 in the >igh ourt decisions and conseKuentl7 in

A' 4enches "ill create con!usion in the mind o! the litigant.

It "ill !urther make the pu4lic loose !aith in seeking 5usticethrough the 5udiciar7, and thus undermine the democratic

norms.

'he ommission is o! the considered 6ie" that a

#ational Appellate Administrati6e 'ri4unal 4e constituted on

the lines o! the #ational onsumer Disputes Redressal

ommission under section *& o! the onsumer 8rotection Act,

%1. It shall 4e manned 47 a retired hie! Justice o! a >igh

ourt or a retired Judge o! the Supreme ourt o! India. An

appeal, on su4stantial Kuestions o! la" and !act ma7 lie to the

proposed Appellate !orum, against the decision o! the entral

Administrati6e 'ri4unal.

'he proposed !orum ma7 ha6e 4ranches all o6er the

countr7 to reduce the cost o! litigation to the litigant.

'he decision o! the proposed Appellate court "ill 4e

4inding on all 4enches o! A'. 'he proposed !orum "ill 4e o!

status higher than a >igh ourt 4ut 4elo" the Supreme ourt.

An appeal ma7 lie against the decision o! the proposed

appellate !orum to the Supreme ourt. =nder section %+&$

o! the ustoms Act, %1*, an appeal lies !rom the decision o!

31

LatestLaws.com


32/72

LatestLaws.com

the EA' to the Supreme ourt. Similarl7, under section *+

o! the onsumer 8rotection Act, %1, an appeal lies against

the #ational ommissionigh ourt against the decision o! A' inasmuch as it is

settled la" that "here adeKuate remed7 o! appeal is there,

one cannot ha6e recourse to the "rit 5urisdiction (see AIR

%1 S %*& AIR % S *%). 'hough it is undisputed

that "here the 6ires o! the statute under "hich the 'ri4unal is

constituted, is challenged, one can ha6e recourse to the "rit

5urisdiction under Article **13** o! the onstitution o! India4ut such cases "ill 4e insigni!icant in num4er. Similarl7 "hen

a right to appeal is contemplated to the Supreme ourt

against the decision o! the proposed Appellate Administrati6e

'ri4unal, one cannot ha6e recourse to the "rit 5urisdiction o!

the >igh ourt under Article **13** o! the onstitution.

'his procedure "ill take care o! the ensuing pro4lems

cropping up a!ter the decision in L. handra Humar


33/72

LatestLaws.com

'he proposed 8resident o! the Appellate !orum "ill

continue to dra" the same salaries and perks as are

admissi4le to a sitting Judge.

All pending "rit petitions against the decision o!

A'3SA' in pursuance o! L. handra Humarigh ourt.

M It is the need o! the hour that !or e0peditious disposal

o! cases, all cases "hich raise one or more commonKuestions o! la" and on the 4asis o! "hich, the cases can 4e

disposed o! 47 a common 5udgment, should 4e grouped

together and heard together. 'hus in the th Report o! the

La" ommission o! India on dela7 and arrears in >igh ourts

and other appellate courts, this recommendation has 4een

echoedM.C

(vide paragraphs -. and -.)

33

LatestLaws.com


34/72

LatestLaws.com

+.* 'he La" ommission in the a!oresaid Report, as regards the

position o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unal a!ter L. Chandra Kumar , also

o4ser6ed

It is no longer an alternati6e mechanism to the >igh ourt,

4ut a tri4unal "hose decisions are su45ect to scrutin7 47 the

>igh ourt, al4eit 47 a Di6ision Bench. (As a matter o! !act,

Shri Justice Shi6a Shankar Bhat, a retired Judge o! the

Harnataka >igh ourt, "ho "as appointed as hairman o! the

Harnataka State Administrati6e 'ri4unal, tendered his

resignation soon a!ter the decision in L. handra Humar "as

rendered, complaining that inasmuch as the position and

status o! the 'ri4unal has 4een do"ngraded 47 the said

decision, he cannot continue as the hairman o! the State

Administrati6e 'ri4unal). hile striking do"n certain clauses

o! Articles +*+$A and +*+$B o! the onstitution M, the

Supreme ourt has at the same time a!!irmed the soundnesso! the principle on "hich these administrati6e tri4unals are

created. It did not agree "ith the contention that these

tri4unals should 4e a4olished inasmuch as the7 ha6e not

pro6ed e!!ecti6e in discharge o! their duties and ha6e !ailed to

achie6e the o45ect "ith "hich the7 "ere created. 'he

Supreme ourt has also held that though these tri4unals are

su45ect to the "rit 5urisdiction o! the >igh ourts, the7 are 7et

competent to decide Kuestions relating to the constitutional

6alidit7 o! the statutor7 pro6isions and rules e0cept, o! course,

the pro6isions o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ under

34

LatestLaws.com


35/72

LatestLaws.com

"hich the7 ha6e 4een constituted. 'he Supreme ourt has

also re5ected that there ought to 4e no technical3administrati6e

mem4ers in these tri4unals. 'he7 said that these non$5udicial

mem4ers pro6ide an input "hich ma7 not 4e a6aila4le "ith the 5udicial mem4ers.

In the light o! the a4o6e dicta o! the Supreme ourt, not

much room is le!t !or the La" ommission o! India to suggest

an7 su4stantial measures or recommendations "ith respect to

the !unctioning o! these tri4unals.C

(vide paragraph -./)

. T/E ADMINISTRATIVE TRI*3NALS AMENDMENT" ACT2007 1 o- 2006" AND T/E ADMINISTRATIVE TRI*3NALSAMENDMENT" *ILL 2007

-.% 'he Administrati6e 'ri4unals (Amendment) Act *&&1 (% o!

*&&) has 4rought a4out man7 changes in the Administrati6e

'ri4unals Act %/. A ne" section 1 has 4een su4stituted pertaining

to the Kuali!ication !or appointment o! hairman, :ice$hairman and

other mem4ers. Su4$section (%) o! ne" section 1 pro6ides that a

person shall not 4e Kuali!ied !or appointment as the chairman

35

LatestLaws.com


36/72

LatestLaws.com

unless he is, or has 4een, a 5udge o! a >igh ourt. Su4$section (*)

o! the said section la7s do"n the Kuali!ications !or appointment o!

Administrati6e em4ers and Judicial em4ers. A Secretar7 to the

Eo6ernment o! India "ith t"o 7ears o! ser6ice and AdditionalSecretar7 to the Eo6ernment o! India "ith !i6e 7ears o! ser6ice are

eligi4le !or appointment as an Administrati6e em4er. A person

"ho is or Kuali!ied to 4e a Judge o! a >igh ourt and Secretar7,

Department o! Legal A!!airs or Legislati6e Department including

em4er$Secretar7, La" ommission o! India, Eo6ernment o! India,

"ith t"o 7ears o! ser6ice and Additional Secretar7, Department o!

Legal A!!airs or Legislati6e Department "ith !i6e 7ears o! ser6ice are

eligi4le !or appointment as a Judicial em4er. Further, su4$section

(+) o! the said section pro6ides that the hairman and e6er7 other

em4er o! the entral Administrati6e 'ri4unal shall 4e appointed

a!ter consultation "ith the hie! Justice o! India 47 the 8resident.

-.* 'he Act % o! *&& has a4olished the post o! :ice$hairmanC"hich e0isted 4e!ore as an independent class. >o"e6er, ne" clause

(u) o! section + de!ines :ice$hairmanC as a em4er "ho has

4een authori?ed 47 the appropriate Eo6ernment to per!orm

administrati6e !unctions at each o! the places "here Benches o! the

'ri4unal ha6e 4een set up.

-.+ 'he 8arliamentar7 Standing ommittee%% has recommended

as !ollo"s

11 Supra note 2" paragraph 11.10

36

LatestLaws.com


37/72

LatestLaws.com

;As a remedial step, the ommittee e0pressed the

!ollo"ing 6ie"

M.a74e, a retired 5udge o! the Supreme ourt can

preside o6er. And, ma74e, the other mem4er could4e !rom the 5udiciar7 not !rom the district 5udges, 4ut

!rom the le6el o! >igh ourts, "e can keep one. And,

then, the third and !ourth mem4ers can 4e !rom the

administration so that the dignit7 and strength o! the

tri4unal is enhanced to that e0tent.C<

-.- 'he 4ackground note on the Administrati6e 'ri4unals

(Amendment) Bill *&&1, !urnished to the 8arliamentar7 Standing

ommittee%* 47 the inistr7 o! 8ersonnel, 8u4lic Erie6ances and

8ensions states as !ollo"s

MM.Initiall7 it "as en6isaged that litigation relating to ser6ice

matters should 4e ad5udicated upon 47 Administrati6e'ri4unals and should not increase the 4urden o! the >igh

ourts. 'hus, the appellate 5urisdiction "as onl7 "ith the

Supreme ourt o! India. >o"e6er, the Supreme ourt in L.

Chandra Kumar 9s UO (AIR % S %%*/) has held that the

"rit 5urisdiction o! the >igh ourt under Article **13** o! the

onstitution cannot 4e e0tinguished 47 an7 Act since it is a

part o! the 4asic structure o! the onstitution. 'hus, appeals

!rom 5udgments o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals no" lie to the

Di6ision Bench o! the corresponding >igh ourt.

12 (id." paragraph 7

37

LatestLaws.com


38/72

LatestLaws.com

A num4er o! State Eo6ernments ha6e proposed !or the

a4olishing o! SA's essentiall7 on the ground that since the

orders o! the SA' ha6e 4een made appeala4le 4e!ore the

Di6ision Bench o! the >igh ourt, it has merel7 added onemore tier in the 5udicial hierarch7. 'he State Eo6ernments

ha6e also stated that the SA's ha6e 4ecome 6er7 e0pensi6e

to administer. At the entral le6el too, it has 4een !ound that

some Benches o! the A' ha6e no" 4ecome unnecessar7 (or

"ill 4ecome unnecessar7 in the near !uture) since the cases

pending 4e!ore them ha6e diminished in num4er.

M

urrentl7, the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act, %/ does not

pro6ide !or either the a4olishing o! an Administrati6e 'ri4unal

or !or the trans!er o! cases to an7 ourt outside the 'ri4unal.

M

As a result o! the Supreme ourt 5udgment in L. Chandra

Kumar , orders o! the entral Administrati6e 'ri4unal ha6e no"routinel7 4een appealed against in >igh ourts "hereas this

"as not the position earlier. Across the 4oard, the

interpretation gi6en 47 >igh ourts to the L. Chandra

Kumar:T. Sudhaar Prasad 5udgment is that >igh ourts

!unction as ourts o! Appeal to the entral Administrati6e

'ri4unal. It should 4e o4ser6ed that though the Chandra

Kumar:Sudhaar Prasad 5udgments onl7 rea!!irmed the

e0isting legal and constitutional pro6isions, the interpretation

has 4een such as to place the 'ri4unal in a position

38

LatestLaws.com


39/72

LatestLaws.com

su4ordinate to the >igh ourts in the matter o! appellate

5urisdiction.C

-./ A pro6ision "as made in the a!oresaid Bill !or an appeal to the>igh ourt. Section *D(%), as proposed in the Bill, pro6ides as

!ollo"s

An7 person aggrie6ed 47 an7 decision or order o! the 'ri4unal

ma7 !ile an appeal to the >igh ourt.C

-.1 'he a!oresaid Bill also seeks to amend the Administrati6e

'ri4unals Act %/ to pro6ide !or an ena4ling pro6ision !or a4olition

o! 'ri4unals as "ell as !or trans!er o! pending cases to some other

authorit7 a!ter a 'ri4unal has 4een a4olished since the parent Act

does not contain an7 speci!ic pro6ision !or a4olition o! 'ri4unals.

-. 'he 8arliamentar7 Standing ommittee%+

also in6ited6ie"s3suggestions !rom 6arious organi?ations on the a!oresaid Bill.

A num4er o! representations3memoranda "ere recei6ed. 2ne o! the

ma5or points raised in the memoranda "ere

'he record o! disposal o! cases o! Administrati6e 'ri4unals

has 4een e0cellent as compared to the su4ordinate ourts

and >igh ourts. 'he a4olition o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals

"ill increase the pending cases in the >igh ourts "here47

speed7 5ustice "ill 4e denied to the citi?ens 47 putting

additional 4urden on the >igh ourts.C

13 (id." paragraph 3

39

LatestLaws.com


40/72

LatestLaws.com

-. r. Justice :. S. alimath deposed 4e!ore the 8arliamentar7

Standing ommittee%- as under

MM.Because Supreme ourt can al"a7s inter!ere "ith an7

decision o! the 'ri4unal and >igh ourt can also do it,

there!ore, >igh ourt 5urisdiction "ill continue to 4e operati6e.

But, i! 7ou pro6ide an appeal against an order o! the 'ri4unal,

technicall7, 7ou ma7 sa7 that Article **1 and ** can still 4e

e0ercised, 4ut no 5udge "ill e0ercise 5urisdiction. I! 7ou sa7

that an appeal to the >igh ourt, I mean, 7ou are 4urdening

the >igh ourt "ith another set o! cases and there47 dela7ing

the disposal o! the ser6ice mattersMM.

M

>e also stated that the aggrie6ed persons "ould like to use

appeal i! it is a6aila4le and that the >igh ourt "ill then 4e

!looded "ith a num4er o! cases. I! there are more cases, there"ill 4e more dela7 and it "ill de!eat the entire purpose o! the

enactment under the onstitutional pro6isions.

Another pertinent point raised 47 him "as that the "a7 the Act

is 4eing implemented no", it is "eakening the 'ri4unal.

Firstl7, it is making the 'ri4unal su4ordinate to the >igh ourt

and its stature is lo"ered. Secondl7, earlier, the retired hie!

Justice used to 4e the hairman o! the 'ri4unal and no", this

practice seems to ha6e 4een gi6en up. #o" a retired Judge o!

the >igh ourt can 4e appointed as hairman since the14 (id." paragraph 4.3

40

LatestLaws.com


41/72

LatestLaws.com

statute does not pro6ide that the hairman o! the 'ri4unal

should 4e !ormer hie! Justice. 'hus the stature o! the

'ri4unal is lo"ered.C

-. Speaking 4e!ore the 8arliamentar7 Standing ommittee%/ on

the issue o! a4olition o! Administrati6e 'ri4unals, r. Justice Ashok

Agar"al deposed that the proposal !or a4olition "as not legal and

that "hat the Eo6ernment could do 47 legislation should 4e done 47

that method onl7. >e opined that the legislature should not delegate

that po"er to the e0ecuti6e. >e deposed as under

MM.I! a particular 'ri4unal is not "orking satis!actoril7, steps

can 4e taken against that particular 'ri4unal. But, on that

account "e cannot a4olish all the 'ri4unals across the countr7

in one stroke 4ecause di!!erent States are go6erned 47

di!!erent conditions o! ser6iceMM.C

-.%& 'he amendment o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ 47

Act % o! *&& has 4rought in changes "hich are seminal in nature.

'he Administrati6e em4ers can 4e appointed onl7 !rom among

persons "ho ha6e had a minimum incum4enc7 in the highest post

o! e0ecuti6e machiner7. 'he status o! mem4ers appointed, 4oth

5udicial and administrati6e, has 4een eKuated "ith that o! Judges o!

the >igh ourt. 'he statistics "ould sho" that onl7 a small

percentage o! the decisions is unsettled, ultimatel7, 4ut the

pendenc7 o! ser6ice cases in the >igh ourts is a realit7. 'he

remedial measures appear to 4e t"o$!old. 2ne is to come "ith a15 (id." paragraph 4.4

41

LatestLaws.com


42/72

LatestLaws.com

pro6ision !or an in$house appeal, the modalities o! "hich could 4e

discussed and !inali?ed, and the Act could 4e amended accordingl7.

B7 constituting such an appellate 4od7, the parameters presentl7

!ollo"ed naturall7 "ould get supplanted, and the period o! pendenc7al"a7s limited.

42

LatestLaws.com


43/72

LatestLaws.com

5. FROM S. P. SAMPATH KUMAR TO L. CHANDRA KUMAR AND T/E IM!LICATIONS

/.% In S. P. Sampath Kumar v. UO *)

, the constitutional 6alidit7 o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ "as challenged on the ground

o! e0clusion o! po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" 4oth o! the Supreme ourt

under article +* and o! the >igh ourts under articles **1 and **

o! the onstitution. During the hearing o! the case, the Act "as

amended and the 5urisdiction o! the ape0 ourt under article +* "as

restored. 'he Supreme ourt in !inal decision held that section *

o! the Administrati6e 'ri4unals Act %/ "hich e0cludes 5urisdiction

o! the >igh ourts under articles **13** is not unconstitutional.

'he ourt ruled that this section does not totall7 4ar 5udicial re6ie".

It also said that Administrati6e 'ri4unals under the %/ Act are

su4stitute o! >igh ourts and "ill deal "ith all ser6ice matters e6en

in6ol6ing articles %-, %/ and %1. It also ad6ised !or changing the

Kuali!ications o! hairman o! the 'ri4unal. As a result, the Act "as!urther amended in %.%

/.* In Union o# ndia v. Parma Nanda*; , a three$Judge Bench o!

the Supreme ourt upheld the authorit7 o! the Administrati6e

'ri4unals to decide the constitutionalit7 o! ser6ice rules.

/.+ In Sampath Kumar


44/72

LatestLaws.com

Bench o! the Andhra 8radesh >igh ourt in Sainala Harinath v.

State o# AP *8 declared su4$clause (d) o! clause (*) o! Article +*+A

unconstitutional. It held that this pro6ision is repugnant to the ruling

o! the Supreme ourt in Kesavananda igh ourts under

articles **1 and ** o! the onstitution.*+

/.- In L. Chandra Kumar igh

ourts. It !urther declared that the decisions o! such tri4unals shall

4e appeala4le 4e!ore a Bench o! t"o Judges in the >igh ourtunder "hose 5urisdiction the tri4unal !alls. >o"e6er, most

importantl7, these tri4unals ha6e 4een gi6en the Kuasi$eKual status

o! >igh ourts in restricted areas. 'hus, the tri4unals esta4lished

under article +*+A can still e0amine the constitutionalit7 o! an

enactment or rule concerning matters on the an6il o! articles %-, %/

and %1 o! the onstitution. A similar po"er "ill 6est in the tri4unals

created under the authorit7 o! article +*+B.*-

19 1994 1 ) H 120 1973 4 , 22521 1993 4 , 11922 1995 1 , 40023 Supra note 1724 (id.

44

LatestLaws.com


45/72

LatestLaws.com

/./ 'he 5usti!ication !or inserting articles +*+A and +*+B in the

onstitution remains 6alid toda7. 'he pendenc7 o! cases in the >igh

ourts and the Supreme ourt has posed an imminent danger tothe administration o! 5ustice. 'here!ore, there is ample scope !or the

administrati6e tri4unals. 'he short e0perience o! "orking o! these

tri4unals has not 4een 4ad although there is need !or !urther

impro6ement. In 6ie" o! the common la" pre5udice, the

constitutionalit7 o! these tri4unals created under articles +*+A and

+*+B has 4een !reKuentl7 impugned. Fortunatel7, the Supreme

ourt has upheld the o45ecti6e !or "hich these tri4unals ha6e come

into e0istence. 'heir 5ourne7 !rom Sampath Kumar to L. Chandra

Kumar has not 4een sterile. L. Chandra Kumar has not o6erruled

Sampath Kumar . It has !irml7 accepted the role o! the administrati6e

tri4unals in the administration o! 5ustice s7stem.*/

/.1 'he Supreme ourt in Sampath Kumar !urther ela4orated this

point>

'he 4asic and essential !eature o! 5udicial re6ie" cannot 4e

dispensed "ith 4ut it "ould 4e "ithin the competence o!

8arliament to amend the onstitution so as to su4stitute in

place o! the >igh ourt, another alternati6e institutional

mechanism or arrangement !or 5udicial re6ie", pro6ided it is

not less e!!icacious than the >igh ourt.C*1

25 (id.26 Supra note 7" page 130

45

LatestLaws.com


46/72

LatestLaws.com

/. >onigh ourt in the

scheme o! administration o! 5ustice. M 'hus 4arring o! the

5urisdiction o! the >igh ourt can indeed not 4e a 6alid ground

o! attack.


47/72

LatestLaws.com

the po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" con!erred on the >igh ourts

under Articles **13** and on the Supreme ourt under

Article +* o! the onstitutionO

(*) hether the 'ri4unals, constituted either under Article

+*+A or under Article +*+B o! the onstitution, possess the

competence to test the constitutional 6alidit7 o! a statutor7

pro6ision3ruleO

(+) hether these 'ri4unals, as the7 are !unctioning at

present, can 4e said to 4e e!!ecti6e su4stitutes !or the >igh

ourts in discharging the po"er o! 5udicial re6ie"O I! not, "hat

are the changes reKuired to make them con!orm to their

!ounding o45ecti6esO

5.9 'he ,upre%e ourt" on 18.03.1997" he$d as under<

@A c$ause 2d of &rtic$e 323& and c$ause 3d of &rtic$e 323+" to

the etent the! ec$ude the -urisdiction of the High ourts and the

,upre%e ourt under &rtic$es 226=227 and 32 of the onstitution"

are unconstitutiona$. ,ection 28 of the &ct and the Bec$usion of

-urisdictionC c$auses in a$$ other $egis$ations enacted under the aegis

of &rtic$es 323& and 323+ wou$d" to the sa%e etent" (e

unconstitutiona$. 'he -urisdiction conferred upon the High ourts

under &rtic$es 226=227 and upon the ,upre%e ourt under &rtic$e

32 of the onstitution is part of the invio$a($e (asic structure of our

onstitution. Whi$e this -urisdiction cannot (e ousted" other courts

47

LatestLaws.com


48/72

LatestLaws.com

and 'ri(una$s %a! perfor% a supp$e%enta$ ro$e in discharging the

powers conferred (! &rtic$es 226=227 and 32 of the onstitution.D28

/.%& It "as !urther held'he 'ri4unals are competent to hear matters "here the vires

o! statutor7 pro6isions are Kuestioned. >o"e6er, in

discharging this dut7, the7 cannot act as su4stitutes !or the

>igh ourts and the Supreme ourt "hich ha6e, under our

constitutional set$up, 4een speci!icall7 entrusted "ith such an

o4ligation. 'heir !unction in this respect is onl7 supplementar7

and all such decisions o! the 'ri4unals "ill 4e su45ect to

scrutin7 4e!ore a Di6ision Bench o! the respecti6e >igh

ourts. 'he 'ri4unals "ill conseKuentl7 also ha6e the po"er

to test the vires o! su4ordinate legislations and rules.

>o"e6er, this po"er o! the 'ri4unals "ill 4e su45ect to one

important e0ception. 'he 'ri4unals shall not entertain an7

Kuestion regarding the vires o! their parent statutes !ollo"ing

the settled principle that a 'ri4unal "hich is a creature o! an

Act cannot declare that 6er7 Act to 4e unconstitutional. In

such cases alone, the concerned >igh ourt ma7 4e

approached directl7. All other decisions o! these 'ri4unals,

rendered in cases that the7 are speci!icall7 empo"ered to

ad5udicate upon 47 6irtue o! their parent statutes, "ill also 4e

su45ect to scrutin7 4e!ore a Di6ision Bench o! their respecti6e

>igh ourts. e ma7 add that the 'ri4unals "ill, ho"e6er,

continue to act as the onl7 courts o! !irst instance in respect o!

28 Supra note 8" paragraph 101

48

LatestLaws.com


49/72

LatestLaws.com

the areas o! la" !or "hich the7 ha6e 4een constituted. B7 this,

"e mean that it "ill not 4e open !or litigants to directl7

approach the >igh ourts e6en in cases "here the7 Kuestion

the vires o! statutor7 legislations (e0cept, as mentioned, "herethe legislation "hich creates the particular 'ri4unal is

challenged) 47 o6erlooking the 5urisdiction o! the concerned

'ri4unal.C*

5.11 t was a$so he$d<

So long as the 5urisdiction o! the >igh ourts under Articles

**13** and that o! this ourt under Article +* is retained,

there is no reason "h7 the po"er to test the 6alidit7 o!

legislations against the pro6isions o! the onstitution cannot

4e con!erred upon Administrati6e 'ri4unals created under the

Act or upon 'ri4unals created under Article +*+B o! the

onstitution. It is to 4e remem4ered that apart !rom the

authorisation that !lo"s !rom Articles +*+A and +*+B, 4oth

8arliament and the State Legislatures possess legislati6e

competence to e!!ect changes in the original 5urisdiction o! the

Supreme ourt and the >igh ourt. 'his po"er is a6aila4le to

8arliament under ntries , , and / o! List I and to the

State Legislatures under ntr7 1/ o! List II ntr7 -1 o! List III

can also 4e a6ailed o! 4oth 47 8arliament and the State

Legislatures !or this purpose.C+&

29 (id." paragraph 9530 (id." paragraph 82

49

LatestLaws.com


50/72

LatestLaws.com

'he Supreme ourt has also held that no indi6idual ma7

directl7 approach the Supreme ourt in an7 matter decided 47 the

Administrati6e 'ri4unal. >e must !irst approach the >igh ourt

(Di6ision Bench) and onl7 therea!ter he ma7 approach the Supremeourt under Article %+1 o! the onstitution.

/.%* 'he Supreme ourt recommended that the =nion

Eo6ernment ma7 initiate action in respect o! appointments3issue o!

the competence o! those "ho man the tri4unals, !unds and the

Kuestion as to "ho is to e0ercise administrati6e super6ision o6er

them and place all the tri4unals under one single nodal department,

pre!era4l7, the Legal Department (inistr7 o! La").

/.%+ As a result o! this 5udgment, orders o! the entral

Administrati6e 'ri4unal ha6e no" routinel7 4een appealed against in

>igh ourts "hereas this "as not the position earlier.

Imp;$c(t$o+% o- L. Chandra Kumar

/.%- 8ro!essor H. . Joshi, !ormerl7 >ead o! La" Department and

Dean, Facult7 o! La", Humaon =ni6ersit7, has in his article

;Constitutional Status o# Tri&unals> +% stated

Administrati6e 'ri4unals pro6ide simple, cheap and speed7

5ustice. Dice7 apprehended danger !rom such tri4unals to the

li4ert7 o! su45ects, 4ut the7 ha6e 4ecome a regular part o! the

s7stem o! 5udicial administration. 'he British 8arliament

31 Supra note 17

50

LatestLaws.com


51/72

LatestLaws.com

enacted the 'ri4unals and the InKuiries Act in %/ "hich has

not 4een consolidated in the %% Act. 8rior to the

onstitution o! India %/&, administrati6e ad5udication "as in

6ogue. 'he onstitution prior to %+ used the "ord tri4unal inarticles %+1 and **. In %+, pro6ision !or the administrati6e

tri4unals "as speci!icall7 made 47 the onstitution ('hirt7$

second Amendment) Act.

ith the acceptance o! "el!are ideolog7, there "as mushroom

gro"th o! pu4lic ser6ices and pu4ic ser6ants. 'he courts,

particularl7, the >igh ourts "ere inundated "ith cases

concerning ser6ice matters. 'he S"aran Singh ommittee,

there!ore, inter alia, recommended the esta4lishment o!

administrati6e tri4unals as a part o! constitutional ad5udicati6e

s7stem. Resultantl7, the onstitution (Fort7$second

Amendment) Act, %1 inserted 8art 9I:A in the onstitution

consisting o! articles +*+A and +*+B. Article +*+A pro6ides!or the esta4lishment o! administrati6e tri4unals !or

ad5udication or trial o! disputes and complaints "ith respect to

recruitment and condition o! ser6ice o! persons appointed to

pu4lic ser6ices. Article +*+B makes pro6ision !or the creation

o! tri4unals !or ad5udication or trial o! disputes, complaints or

o!!ences connected "ith ta0, !oreign e0change, industrial and

la4our disputes, land re!orms, ceiling on ur4an propert7,

elections to 8arliament and State Legislatures, etc. #one o!

these t"o articles is sel!$e0ecutor7. 8arliament has e0clusi6e

po"er to enact a la" under article +*+A, "hile 4oth

51

LatestLaws.com


52/72

LatestLaws.com

8arliament and State Legislatures can make la"s on matters

o! article +*+B su45ect to their legislati6e competence.<

/.%/ 'he opinion e0pressed 47 the Supreme ourt a4out theretired Judges presiding the tri4unals is not Kuite correct. 'hese

retired Judges are e0perienced people, ha6ing spent a ma5or part o!

their li!e in ad5udication "ork. 'he7 ha6e decided causes and

contro6ersies coming 4e!ore them. 'he7 ha6e collected a rich

e0perience and decision$making process. 'he7 are "ell 6ersed in

the art o! ad5udication. 'he7 are !ull7 con6ersant "ith court

processes. 'he7 ha6e acKuired a certain e0pertise in dealing "ith

matters, ci6il, criminal, ta0, la4our and constitutional coming 4e!ore

them. In short, the7 represent a rich pool o! talent.

/.%1 As stated earlier, in order to annihilate the monster o! 4acklog,

a multi$pronged attack is indispensa4le. onstitution$makers had

the 6ision to !oresee that a situation ma7 de6elop "here the talent o! retired Judges "ill ha6e to 4e enlisted and, there!ore, the7 had

made ample pro6ision in this 4ehal!. Article **-A o! the

onstitution pro6ides that not"ithstanding an7thing in hapter I: in

8art : o! the onstitution, the hie! Justice o! a >igh ourt !or an7

State ma7 at an7 time, "ith the pre6ious consent o! the 8resident,

reKuest an7 person "ho has held the o!!ice o! a Judge o! an7 >igh

ourt, to sit and act as a Judge o! the >igh ourt !or that State, and

e6er7 such person so reKuested shall, "hile so sitting and acting, 4e

entitled to such allo"ances as the 8resident ma7 47 order

determine and ha6e all the 5urisdiction, po"ers and pri6ileges o!, 4ut

52

LatestLaws.com


53/72

LatestLaws.com

shall not other"ise 4e deemed to 4e, a Judge o! that >igh ourt.

'here is a pro6iso "hich sa7s that this po"er could onl7 4e

e0ercised "ith the consent o! the person concerned. Rarel7, i! e6er,

this po"er is in6oked.

/.% #o", in e6er7 >igh ourt, there are numerous cases more

than !i6e 7ears old. Some o! them ma7 ha6e 4ecome o4solete

some o! them ma7 ha6e 4ecome irrele6ant some ma7 ha6e as "ell

a4ated and there ma7 4e some in "hich the parties ha6e lost

litigating interest sheerl7 on account o! dela7 in disposal o! cases.

=ndou4tedl7, there ma7 4e man7 in "hich the matter had to 4e

ad5udicated upon and 5udgment deli6ered.

/.% It is also pertinent to notice that some State Eo6ernments

ha6e a4olished the State Administrati6e 'ri4unals. For e0ample, the

Eo6ernment o! 'amil #adu has a4olished the State Administrati6e

'ri4unal !unctioning at hennai as, according to them, disposals"ere minimal and not satis!actor7 and e0pensi6e. 'here!ore, the

state go6ernment ser6ants o! 'amil #adu ha6e to approach the

>igh ourt under Article **1 o! the onstitution !or redressal o! their

grie6ances, since the 'ri4unal has alread7 4een a4olished. So, the

>igh ourt is the court o! !irst instance so !ar as the state

go6ernment ser6ants are concerned, "hereas the central

go6ernment ser6ants "ho li6e "ithin the 5urisdiction o! the entral

Administrati6e 'ri4unal at hennai ha6e t"o !orums to agitate their

grie6ances in regard to their ser6ice matters. 'he central

go6ernment ser6ants, i! aggrie6ed 47 the decision o! the 'ri4unal,

53

LatestLaws.com


54/72

LatestLaws.com

can make an air dash to the >igh ourt and in6oke its 5urisdiction

under Article **1 o! the onstitution !or redressal. 'here is an

anomal7. 'he result is that central go6ernment sta!! at hennai can

a6ail the 5urisdiction o! the 'ri4unal and also o! the >igh ourt andthen come to the Supreme ourt, "hereas the state go6ernment

ser6ants a!ter the a4olition o! the State Administrati6e 'ri4unal,

should onl7 approach the >igh ourt under Article **1 o! the

onstitution, "hich case ma7 4e heard 47 a single Judge or

sometimes 47 a Di6ision Bench. I! it is heard 47 a single Judge,

then the aggrie6ed part7 "ill ha6e a right o! appeal in the >igh ourt

itsel! 4e!ore a Di6ision Bench. 'hus, the ser6ice matters "ill 4e

pending 4e!ore the single Judge and therea!ter 4e!ore Di6ision

Bench !or 7ears 4e!ore coming to the Supreme ourt. 'hus, the

state go6ernment ser6ants o! 'amil #adu are depri6ed o! the rule o!

speed7 5ustice. It is a matter o! record that lots o! cases are

pending 4e!ore the >igh ourt on ser6ice matters and that the same

cannot 4e disposed o! "ithin a short period 4ecause o! the 6ariousother !actors such as non$!illing o! the 6acancies in the >igh ourt

and also non$a6aila4ilit7 o! in!rastructure, etc. etc.

/.% 'he 5udgment o! the Supreme ourt in L. Chandra Kumar is

also likel7 to lead to conseKuences, "hich are undesira4le. 'he

Supreme ourt is not correct in its assumption that the reach and

range o! the po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" o! the Supreme ourt and that

o! the >igh ourts are identical. It has alread7 4een pointed out

a4o6e that the po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" in India, a!ter Kesavananda> s

54

LatestLaws.com


55/72

LatestLaws.com

case, co6ers the !ollo"ing three cases. 'he courts ha6e the po"er

to strike do"n the !ollo"ing

i) su4ordinate legislation "hich is ultra vires the parent Actii) legislations o! 8arliament and the State Legislatures i! the7

contra6ene the pro6isions o! the onstitution and

iii) the constitutional amendments "hich 6iolate the 4asic

structure o! the onstitution.+*

/.*& 'he Supreme ourt in Kesavananda !or the !irst time in the

histor7 o! democratic onstitutions o! the "orld, assumed to itsel!

the third po"er mentioned a4o6e, i.e., the po"er to declare

constitutional amendments as unconstitutional i! the7 6iolate the

4asic structure o! the onstitution. Some might !eel that the

assumption o! this po"er 47 the Supreme ourt is 4ad enough in

the conte0t o! representati6e democrac7. But "hat is "orse "ould

4e to e0tend the e0ercise o! this enormous po"er to the >igh ourtsalso and a!ter Chandra Kumar to all manner o! tri4unals. 2ne

4i?arre conseKuence "ould 4e that di!!erent >igh ourts are likel7

to strike do"n di!!erent pro6isions o! constitutional amendments in

di!!erent States and the onstitution o! India "hich is the

!undamental la" o! the countr7 "ould 4e in operation in a !ractured

and !ragmented manner. In !act, a Di6ision Bench o! the Andhra

8radesh >igh ourt in Sainala Harinath v. Andhra Pradesh has

struck do"n Article +*+A (*) (d) "hich ousted the 5urisdiction o! the

>igh ourts in ser6ice matters. Ei6en the 6agaries o! unsta4le

32 E. ageswara ao and /. +. edd!" Doctrine of Judicial Review and Tribunals<Speed Breakers Ahead " 39 ) 411 1997

55

LatestLaws.com


56/72

LatestLaws.com

coalition go6ernments "hich depend on sur6i6al politics at an7 cost,

the possi4ilit7 cannot 4e ruled out o! collusi6e "rit petitions in the

>igh ourts seeking the striking do"n o! incon6enient pro6isions o!

constitutional amendments, past, present or !uture, "ithout an7part7 seeking a !urther appeal to the Supreme ourt con6enientl7.

#o", thanks to the Chandra Kumar 5udgment, these disastrous

results can 4e e0tended to di!!erent tri4unals "ithin the same State

striking do"n di!!erent pro6isions o! the constitutional amendments

on the ground o! 6iolation o! the so$called 4asic structure o! the

onstitution.++

/.*% 'hus, as stated a4o6e, the Supreme ourt ought not to

assimilate the 5udicial re6ie" o! the >igh ourts to that o! the

Supreme ourt o! India "ith regard to the 4asic structure doctrine

as propounded in Kesavananda. 'he Supreme ourt should

e0clusi6el7 reser6e to itsel! the po"er to strike do"n constitutional

amendments !or 6iolating the 4asic structure o! the onstitution.Besto"ing this po"er on the >igh ourts "ould create terri4le

constitutional con!usion and this con!usion "ould 4e "orse

con!ounded i! it is !urther e0tended to all manner o! tri4unals. hile

the Supreme ourt on one hand e0pressed its serious reser6ations

a4out the Kualit7 o! 5ustice dispensed 47 these ser6ice tri4unals, the

court on the other hand "as "illing to distri4ute the po"er o! 5udicial

re6ie" under the Kesavananda doctrine to all sorts o! tri4unals

throughout the countr7.+-

33 (id.34 (id.

56

LatestLaws.com


57/72

LatestLaws.com

/.** It should 4e remem4ered that though 8arliament has the

po"er under Article +*(+) to con!er the po"er o! 5udicial re6ie" on

other courtsC "ithout pre5udice to the po"er o! the Supreme ourt

under Article +*(%), it has not done that so !ar e6en "hen it hasesta4lished di!!erent tri4unals under di!!erent enactments. But in an

e0traordinar7 gratuitous gesture the Supreme ourt has done that

in Chandra Kumar


58/72

LatestLaws.com

rationale o! those tri4unals "ould 4e de!eated i! all those cases

ha6e to go 4e!ore the concerned >igh ourts again.+

/.*/ It is too late in the da7 to go 4ack to Dice7


59/72

LatestLaws.com

1999 a$so reco%%ended esta($ish%ent of an &r%ed orces &ppe$$ate

'ri(una$.

1.* 'he Armed Forces 'ri4unal Bill *&&/ "as introduced in8arliament to pro6ide !or the ad5udication or trial 47 Armed Forces

'ri4unal o! disputes and complaints "ith respect to commission,

appointments, enrolment and conditions o! ser6ice in respect o!

persons su45ect to the Arm7 Act %/&, the #a67 Act %/ and the

Air Force Act %/& and also to pro6ide !or appeals arising out o!

orders, !indings or sentences o! court$martial held under the said

Acts and !or matters connected there"ith or incidental thereto.

1.+ hapter / o! the Armed Forces 'ri4unal Act *&& deals "ith

appeal to the Supreme ourt. Su4$section (%) o! section +&

pro6ides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme ourt against the

!inal decision or order o! the 'ri4unal (other than an order passed

under section %) "ithin a period o! & da7s. Section +&(%) is

su45ect to the pro6isions o! section +%. It also pro6ides that there

shall 4e no appeal against an interlocutor7 order o! the 'ri4unal and

that as pro6ided in su4$section (*) o! section +&, an appeal shall lie

to the Supreme ourt as o! right against an7 order or decision o! the

'ri4unal in the e0ercise o! its 5urisdiction to punish !or contempt

"hich shall 4e !iled "ithin 1& da7s !rom the date o! the order

appealed against. Section +% clearl7 sa7s that an appeal to the

Supreme ourt shall lie "ith the lea6e o! the 'ri4unal and such

lea6e shall not 4e granted unless it is certi!ied 47 the 'ri4unal that a

point o! la" o! general pu4lic importance is in6ol6ed in the decision,

59

LatestLaws.com


60/72

LatestLaws.com

or it appears to the Supreme ourt that the point is one "hich ought

to 4e considered 47 that ourt. Section ++ e0cludes the 5urisdiction

o! ci6il courts in relation to ser6ice matters under this Act.

1.- Section 1(%) o! the *&& Act pro6ides that a person shall not

4e Kuali!ied !or appointment as the hairman unless he is a retired

Judge o! the Supreme ourt or a retired hie! Justice o! a >igh

ourt and as per section 1(*) a person shall not 4e Kuali!ied !or

appointment as a Judicial em4er unless he is or has 4een a Judge

o! a >igh ourt. An Administrati6e em4er "ill 4e dra"n !rom the

Forces, holding the rank o! a5or Eeneral3a4o6e or eKui6alent "ho

ha6e ser6ed at least three 7ears in that rank and in case o! Judge

Ad6ocate Eeneral at least one 7ear, according to section 1(+).

1./ Section pro6ides that the hairperson and em4ers shall

4e appointed 47 the 8resident "ith the consultation o! the hie!

Justice o! India.

1.1 2n the e0clusion o! 5urisdiction o! ci6il courts, section ++

reads

2n and !rom the date !rom "hich an7 5urisdiction, po"ers and

authorit7 4ecomes e0ercisa4le 47 the 'ri4unal in relation to

ser6ice matters under this Act, no i6il ourt shall ha6e, or 4e

entitled to e0ercise, such 5urisdiction, po"er or authorit7 in

relation to those ser6ice matters.C

60

LatestLaws.com


61/72

LatestLaws.com

1. It ma7 4e mentioned here that as per article %+1(*) o! the

onstitution, the pro6isions o! article %+1(%) pertaining to special

lea6e to appeal 47 the Supreme ourt are not applica4le to an7

5udgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made 47 an7court or tri4unal constituted 47 or under an7 la" relating to the

Armed Forces. Similarl7, article **(-) o! the onstitution pro6ides

that nothing in article ** shall 4e deemed to con!er on a >igh

ourt po"ers o! superintendence o6er an7 court or tri4unal

constituted 47 or under an7 la" relating to the Armed Forces.

1. e ma7 also 4ene!iciall7 record the Statement o! 245ects and

Reasons o! the Armed Forces 'ri4unal Bill *&&/, "hich reads thus

S'A'#' 2F 2BJ'S A#D RAS2#S

'he e0isting s7stem o! administration o! 5ustice in the Arm7 and Air Force pro6ides !or su4mission o! statutor7complaints against grie6ances relati

law commission report no. 215- l. chandra kumar be revisited by larger bench of supreme court of...

Documents