L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A. M. Ahmadi (CJI), M. M. Punchhi, K. Ramaswamy, S. P. Bharucha, S. Saghir Ahmad, K. Venkataswami and K. T. Thomas, JJ.

Date of Judgement: 18/03/1977

Relevant Provision/Statutes: Article 323-A, 323-B of the Constitution

Brief Facts:

This landmark case began with a group of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, which allowed the government to set up administrative tribunals. These tribunals were given the power to handle cases related to service matters, tax issues, and industrial disputes. The petitioners argued that these provisions took away the powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and the Supreme Court under Article 32, which violated the basic structure of the Constitution. They believed that judicial review—a key feature of the Constitution—was being weakened because the High Courts were being bypassed. Earlier, tribunals could hear cases directly, and appeals could only be made to the Supreme Court, leaving no role for the High Courts. The issues raised in this case came from the constitutional amendments that introduced Articles 323A and 323B, which effectively removed the High Courts’ power to hear service-related matters. In earlier cases like Kesavananda Bharati^[1] and S.P. Sampath Kumar^[2], the courts tried to address these concerns, but those judgments created more confusion instead of solving the problem. Eventually, all these issues were settled in the landmark decision of  L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. After the new articles came into effect, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was established with five benches on November 1, 1985. However, even before these benches became functional, several petitions had already been filed in the Supreme Court questioning the validity of Articles 323A and 323B. The main argument in these petitions was that excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts was unconstitutional and went against the basic structure of the Constitution.^[3]

Issues:

• The first issue was whether the power given to Parliament and State Legislatures under Article 323A(2)(d) and Article 323B(3)(d)—which allows them to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136—goes against the concept of judicial review. The Court had to decide whether this removal of High Courts’ power under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 was unconstitutional, as judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• The second question was whether the Tribunals created under Article 323A or 323B have the authority to examine whether a law or rule is constitutional. In simple terms, can these tribunals decide if a law made by the government violates the Constitution?
• The third issue was whether the existing Tribunals function effectively enough to replace High Courts in performing judicial review. If they do not meet the required standards, the Court considered what improvements or reforms are necessary to ensure these Tribunals fulfil the role they were originally created for.^[4]

Arguments:

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) should be declared unconstitutional because they give exclusive authority to tribunals, which was earlier exercised by High Courts under Article 227.
• Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act should also be declared unconstitutional, as it allows a single-member Bench of a Tribunal to examine and strike down the validity of a law, which should not be allowed.
• Although the Act does not affect the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32, the powers given to Parliament through Articles 323A and 323B could be misused in the future, possibly weakening the authority of Tribunals, and hence, these provisions should be struck down.^[5]

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The constitutional provisions in question should be upheld, and tribunals should be allowed to exercise powers like those under Article 226, like the High Courts.
• Parliament was aware of this situation while framing the law, and Article 32 of the Constitution was not meant to be affected. However, the powers of High Courts under Article 226 were intentionally reduced by creating alternative institutional mechanisms, like tribunals.
• The judgment in Sampath Kumar’s case was based on sound reasoning and should not be reopened.
• Section 5(6) is not unconstitutional, because earlier Supreme Court rulings in Amulya Chandra’s and Dr. Mahabal Ram’s cases made it clear that any issue regarding the validity of laws should be handled by a Bench with a judicial member, and these rules will be followed going forward.^[6]

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ruled that some parts of Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution were unconstitutional. In particular, Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B were struck down because they tried to take away the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226, 227, and 32. The Court said that judicial review—the power to check if laws are valid—is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed.

The Court also said that tribunals set up under Articles 323A and 323B can examine the constitutionality of laws and rules. But their decisions are not final. Instead of allowing people to go directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136, the Court laid down a new process. If someone is not satisfied with a tribunal’s decision, they must first appeal to the High Court under Articles 226 or 227. Only after the High Court’s Division Bench gives a ruling, the person can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136. This ensures that judicial review stays with the higher courts, while tribunals still play an important role.^[7]

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Reasoning of the Judgment):

• Judicial Review is Part of the Basic Structure:

The power of judicial review over legislative action, vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32, is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed.

• Judicial Superintendence is Essential:

The supervisory power of the High Courts over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction is also a basic feature of the Constitution.

• Tribunals Cannot Replace Higher Judiciary:

Judicial review by tribunals or subordinate courts, created under ordinary laws, cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court. Tribunals may play a supplemental role, but not a substitutional one.

• Scope of Tribunal Powers:

Tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B can examine the constitutionality (vires) of subordinate legislation. However, they cannot question the constitutionality of their own parent statutes.

• Tribunal Decisions Subject to High Court Review:

All decisions of such tribunals will be subject to judicial scrutiny by a Division Bench of the respective High Court under Articles 226 and 227. Direct appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 are not permitted. This direction applies prospectively (i.e., from the date of judgment onward).

• Administrative Members Can Continue:

The appointment of administrative members in tribunals need not be stopped.

• Oversight of Tribunals:

Until a completely independent body is formed to monitor the functioning of tribunals, all tribunals will remain under a single nodal ministry^[8].

Final Decision:

Tribunals are competent to hear cases where the validity (vires) of statutory provisions is challenged. However, they are not substitutes for the Supreme Court or High Courts. Their role is supplementary, not replacement. Importantly, the decisions of tribunals are subject to judicial review before a Division Bench of the concerned High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Tribunals have the power to examine the validity of subordinate legislation and rules, but they cannot question the constitutional validity of their parent statutes.

Further, litigants cannot bypass the jurisdiction of the concerned tribunal and directly approach the High Court in cases questioning the validity of statutory laws, unless it falls under the exception (parent statute vires).

This judgment was made effective prospectively, meaning it overruled the decision in the Sampat Kumar case only for future cases and not retroactively.

[1] (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461

[2] (1987) 1 SCC 124 : AIR (1987) SC 386

[3] L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 – Case Analysis | Dhyeya Law https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/l-chandra-kumar-v-union-of-india-1997-3-scc-261

[4] MANU_SC_0261_1997 https://share.google/rNzY3GQRzNs5nFMHC

[5] Id.

[6] Id at 3.

[7] L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/l-chandra-kumar-v-union-of-india-air-1997-sc-1125

[8] Case study of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India – Academike https://share.google/UuWUstCszBOix4oRr