The establishment of State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) under Article 323-A of the Indian Constitution does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and is a permissible exercise of Parliament's constituent power.

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. : In common acceptation, the doctrine of Judicial review works through the remedies of appeal and revision as prescribed by the prevalent procedural law. The doctrine, however, has a special significance in public law particularly in the countries having a written Constitution and Ours being such the doctrine constitutes the essence of the system as introduced by the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a legal instrument and this law is superior in status to the laws made by the legislature. Dr. Basu in his Tagore Law Lectures very succinctly stated the broad features of the doctrine to the following effect. Dr. Basu stated:

"Where the Constitution operates as a higher law, any act which transgresses the mandates of that higher law becomes unconstitutional and since not only the Executive but the Legislature itself is limited by that higher law, as in the U.S.A. or in India, a legislative act, too, would be unconstitutional and invalid when it contravenes the Constitution. The peculiarity of judicial review in the Constitutional sphere is that this power is wielded by the Judiciary, not over any inferior tribunal, but over coordinate authorities viz., the Legislature and the Executive."

2. In tracing out the history of the doctrine, we find that the pronouncement of Coke, C.J. in Bonham's case (1610 : 8 Co. 114(a) is the genesis of the doctrine. Coke, C.J., observed that an act of Parliament which is against common right and reason ought to be adjudged void by Court of Law in the event of there being any contravention of the principle of natural justice. Subsequently, Hobart, C.J., in Day vs. Savadge (1614 : Hob. 85) in the same vein held that an act of Parliament made against natural equity was void in itself. Be it noted that prior to the advent of constitutionalism, Law Court had to deal with the issue of judicial review on the basis of the doctrine as propounded by Coke, C.J., in Bonham's case and as followed by Hobart, C.J., in Day vs. Savadge (supra) in the year 1614. Subsequently, upon, however, the adaptation of a written Constitution in the United States, Law Courts did find a more tangible foundation for the claim in favour of fundamental law embodied in the Constitution. Marshall, C.J., in Merbury vs. Madison (1803 (1) Cr. 137) stated :

"The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written…………………….

Certainly all those who have framed Written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and consequently......... an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void."

3. Dr. Basu, in his lecture stated that wherever there is a written Constitution imposing legal limitations upon the organs of the Government, there must be an interpretor of the Constitution and that function must be entrusted to the Judiciary which alone is competent to interpret legal instruments. In fine, Dr. Basu stated the doctrine under three several Courts as follows :

(i) Since the Court is to regard the Constitution as superior to an act of the Legislature, it is for the Courts, in case of conflict, to declare which law shall prevail and to disregard the repugnant Act, which is no law, in determining the case before it.

(ii) Since the Constitution is the paramount law of the nation being the declared will of the people themselves, an act of the Legislature (whose powers are limited by the Constitution) which is repugnant to it must be void.

(iii) it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is and if two laws conflict with each other the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

4. Ours is a written Constitution having three independent organs viz., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary : Whereas the Legislature legislates and the Executive administers, the Judiciary is the controlling factor in regard to the abuse of power-be it the