1. Challenge to the validity of Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the jurisdiction and composition of Tribunal Benches. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 1222
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
L. Chandra Kumar, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents. 1152
Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1989 (with SLP (C) No. 16059 of 1992, W.P. (C) No. 918 of 1992, R. P.(C) No. 704/1990 in C.A. No. 1212 of 1990)
Decided on 2-12-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. Rama Jois and Mr. N. N. Goswamy Sr. Advocates, Mr. V. Balachandran, Mr. T. Harish Kumar, V. Ramasubramanian (Ms. Kiran Jethanand), Advocate for Appellants S. R. Bhat, Ms. Sushma Suri, Mr. Pravir Choudhary, Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Mr. M. Veerappa, Mr. Hemant Sharma and Mr. C.V.S. Rao, Advocates with them for appearing parties.
Advocates:
C.V.SUBBA RAO, HEMANT SHARMA, KIRAN JETHANAND, M.A.KRISHNAMURTHY, M.RAMA JOIS, M.VIRAPPA, N.N.GOSWAMY, Pravir Chaudhary, S.R.Bhatt, SUSHMA SURI, T.HARISH KUMAR, V.BALACHANDRAN, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAM
C.V.SUBBA RAO, HEMANT SHARMA, KIRAN JETHANAND, M.A.KRISHNAMURTHY, M.RAMA JOIS, M.VIRAPPA, N.N.GOSWAMY, Pravir Chaudhary, S.R.Bhatt, SUSHMA SURI, T.HARISH KUMAR, V.BALACHANDRAN, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAM
Important Points
The Court referred the reconsideration of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India to a larger Bench to determine if Administrative Tribunals can be equated with High Courts and whether the power of judicial review can be exercised by an alternative mechanism instead of regular courts.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 5(6) and 5(2) - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 323-A and 323-B - Conceive of setting up of various Tribunals - Interpretation of constitutional - Inserted Part XIV-A in the Constitution which contains Articles 323-A and 323-B - These Articles conceive of setting up of various Tribunals as adjudicatory bodies - They inter alia, contain provision which enable, not only the Parliament but even State Legislatures, to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts except Court Article 136 with respect to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunals - Act came to be enacted by Parliament in exercise of powers conferred on it by Article 323-A of the Constitution - While upholding the validity of Section 28 of the Act - Court took the view that the power of judicial review need not always be exercised by regular Courts and same can be exercised by an equally efficacious alternative mechanism – Held, Three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in SCC in which need for the Members of the Tribunal in that case set up with the aid of Article 323-B but what was having adequate legal expertise, judicial experience and legal training was emphasised to enable the Tribunal to become effective alternative institutional mechanism and to dispense with High Courts power of judicial review., opined that such Tribunals being creature of statutes can in no case claim the status of the High Court or parity or as substitutes - Court including the question whether the Tribunal can at all have an Administrative Member on its Bench, if it were to have the power of even deciding constitutional validity of a statute or 309 Rule – Ordered Accordingly
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether judicial power must be exercised by regular courts and whether Tribunals can be equated with High Courts in status and jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Conflicting judicial views exist regarding the status of Tribunals, their power to decide constitutional validity, and the competency of single Administrative Members. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. The legal status of Tribunals and the validity of single-member Benches deciding constitutional issues require reconsideration by a larger Bench. (Para 1 , 9 )
5. Records referred to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger Bench to reconsider the judgment in S.P. Sampath Kumar. (Para 1 , 10 )
6. Can a single Administrative Member of a Tribunal decide the constitutional validity of a statute?
Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, permits a single Member to exercise the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, the court noted opinions that questions of law or constitutional interpretation should ordinarily be referred to a two-member Bench. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. Are Administrative Tribunals considered equivalent to High Courts?
No. The court noted that Tribunals are not deemed High Courts, cannot claim parity in pay or superannuation, and cannot side-track decisions of the concerned High Court. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Is it permissible for judicial review to be exercised by an alternative mechanism instead of regular courts?
While the judgment in S.P. Sampath Kumar held that judicial review could be exercised by an equally efficacious alternative mechanism, this view has been challenged as contrary to established constitutional dicta. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT
The challenge to the validity of Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act) has unmasked greater issues, to examine which, we have come to the conclusion that the judgment of this Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1SCC 124 : (AIR 1987 SC 386) which is by a Constitution Bench of five learned Judges, needs to be reconsidered by a larger Bench. Our reasons follow.
2. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted Part XIV-A in the Constitution which contains Articles 323-A and 323-B. These Articles conceive of setting up of various Tribunals as adjudicatory bodies. They inter alia, contain provision which enable, not only the Parliament but even State Legislatures, to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts except that of this Court Article 136 with respect to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunals. The Act came to be enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 323-A of the Constitution. The vires of the Act was challenged before this Court which was upheld in Sampath Kumars case.
2A. While upholding the validity of Section 28 of the Act in Sampath Kumars case (AIR 1987 SC 386) this Court took the view that the power of judicial review need not always be exercised by regular Courts and the same can be exercised by an equally efficacious alternative mechanism. Apart from making suggestions relating to the eligibility etc. of the persons who could be appointed as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Members of the Tribunal this Court stated that every Bench of the Tribunal should consist of one judicial Member and one Administrative Member.
3. The primary reason, according to us, for having a fresh-look at the issues, involved in Sampath Kumars case (AIR 1987 SC 386) is the observations of the Bench therein by which the Tribunals have been equated with the High Courts. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in J.B. Chopra v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 357, relying upon Sampath Kumar has held that the Tribunals have the jurisdiction, power and authority even to adjudicate upon question pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of a rule framed by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They can even adjudicate on the vires of the Acts of Parliament and State Legislatures. Section 5(6) of the Act gives this power, if the Chairman of the Tribunal so desires, even to a single Administrative Member. It is different matter that no Chairman would like to do so; but that has no relevance while examining the validity of the sub-section which reads as below:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be competent for the Chairman or any other Member authorised by the Chairman in this behalf to function as a Bench consisting of a single Member and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the Chairman may by general or special order specify: Provided that if any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter it appears to the Chairman or such Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of two Members the case or matter may be transferred by the Chairman or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer to, such Bench as the Chairman may deem fit."
4. In Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 181, a two-judge Bench of this Court held that the Administrative Member of Tribunal alone is not competent to hear and decide a case. This view was taken after referring to what has been pointed out in Sampath Kumars case (AIR 1987 SC 386) requiring Bench of the Tribunal to consist of one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member following which observation, the Act was amended to say so, vide its Section 5(2) as substituted by Act 19 of 1986. The attention of th
