SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(AP) 495

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.REDDAPPA REDDY, M.N.RAO, S.PARVATHA RAO
Sakinala Harinath - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-25-93

The power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and cannot be excluded by a parliamentary enactment.

Headnote:

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India is unconstitutional to the extent it empowers Parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and consequently, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to the extent it divests the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 is unconstitutional.

Fact of the Case:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court was asked to consider the constitutionality of Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India and Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these provisions, arguing that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution and that the High Court's power of judicial review could not be excluded by a parliamentary enactment. The State Government and the Union of India defended the constitutionality of the provisions.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India is unconstitutional to the extent it empowers Parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and consequently, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to the extent it divests the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 is unconstitutional.

Issues: 1. Whether Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India is unconstitutional to the extent it empowers Parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226? 2. Whether Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is unconstitutional to the extent it divests the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and cannot be excluded by a parliamentary enactment. 2. The High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226 cannot be excluded even by a constitutional amendment.

Final Decision: The High Court declared that Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India is unconstitutional to the extent it empowers Parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and consequently, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to the extent it divests the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 is unconstitutional.

M. N. RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of cases, the primordial question for consideration concerns the constitutionality of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article 323-A. Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India consisting of two articles-323-A and 323-B-was inserted by section 46 of the Constitution (42nd amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3-1-1977. Clause (1) of Article 323-A confers power on Parliament to establish, by law, administrative tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complaints with regard to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or of any State or of any local authority or of Public corporation controlled or owned by the Government. Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (2) speak of what the law made under clause (1) may provide for. Sub-clause (d) of clause (2) lays down that the law made under clause (1) may "exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme court under Article 136 with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in clause (1)". Clause (3) incorporating non-obstante clause mandates that the provisions of Article 323-A shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.

( 2 ) THE Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act No. 13 of 1985) was enacted by parliament in exercise of power under Article 323-A. The Act contains provisions for establishment of a Central Administrative tribunal at the National level with Benches at several places and an Administrative Tribunal for each State or two or more States to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred under the Act. The tribunals at the state level are established only on receipt of a request in that behalf from any State government (Section 4 ).

( 3 ) SECTION 6 of the Act lays down qualifications for appointment of Chairman, vice-Chairman or other members. Under sub-section (1), a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court is eligible to be appointed as the Chairman. The vice-Chairman could be a Judge of a High court or Secretary to the Government of india with two years experience in that post or an Additional Secretary with five years experience or a member of the administrative Tribunal with not less than three years of experience. Sub-sections (3) and (3-A) speak of qualifications for appointment to the post of judicial member and administrative member. The Chief justice of India is required to be consulted in regard to the appointments of the Chairman, vice-Chairman and members of the Tribunal. Sections 14 and 15 deal with jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central administrative Tribunal and State administrative Tribunals respectively. The tribunals are conferred with power to punish for contempt under Sec. 17. The procedure and powers of the Tribunals are dealt with in section 22 and decisions are required to be given by majority as per Section 26. Section 27 forbids challenge to the orders of the tribunals in any High Court. Section 28 which excludes the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court and industrial courts, is in the following terms :"exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.--------On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post, no court except - (a) the Supreme Court ; or (b) any Industrial Tribunal. Labour court or other authority constituted under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters. "section 29



























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top