Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.REDDAPPA REDDY, M.N.RAO, S.PARVATHA RAO
Sakinala Hari Nath - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-10-93
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal constituted under Act No. 13 of 1985 is unconstitutional as per the dicta of the Supreme Court in S. P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India and certain other decisions. In the state of Andhra Pradesh, no Administrative tribunal can come into being by an executive order; such a tribunal can only be created by parliamentary enactment as envisaged by Article 323-A itself and that too, after reconciling Article 371-D by an appropriate amendment to the constitution. Article 323-A (2) (d) is unconstitutional since it destroys the basic structure of the Constitution; the Constitution vests judicial power of the State in the Supreme Court and the High Courts under Articles 32, 226 and 227 and any interference with that power would amount to destroying the basic and essential feature of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was established under Act No. 13 of 1985 (Act No. 13 of 1985) by the President of India under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. The Act was challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution and that it ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court also held that Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India was unconstitutional to the extent that it empowered Parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
Issues: 1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal constituted under Act No. 13 of 1985 is unconstitutional? 2. Whether Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India is unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court relied on the following grounds: * The Tribunal was established by an executive order of the President, rather than by a parliamentary enactment as required by Article 323-A of the Constitution. * The Tribunal was given the power to adjudicate disputes relating to the service conditions of state government employees, which is a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. * The Tribunal was not subject to the same judicial review as the High Court, which meant that its decisions could not be challenged in the Supreme Court. 2. The Court held that Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India was unconstitutional to the extent that it empowered Parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court held that this provision violated the basic structure of the Constitution because it deprived citizens of their right to seek judicial review of administrative decisions.
Final Decision: The Court declared that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was unconstitutional and that Article 323-A (2) (d) of the Constitution of India was unconstitutional to the extent that it empowered Parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
( 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 mat 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 (l)". Clause (3) incorporatingnon-obefante clause mandates that the provisions of Article 323-A shall have effect not with standing any tiling 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 Indiais 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 Section 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, power or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters. "section 29 r
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
