Facts in Brief

This case dealt with two major issues:

(a) Whether the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in service matters specified in Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in such service matters in the Administrative Tribunal — subject to an exception in favour of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 — was constitutionally permitted.

(b) Whether the composition of the Administrative Tribunal and the mode of appointment of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members had the effect of introducing a constitutional infirmity invalidating the provisions of the impugned Act.

Judgment

The case is of seminal importance, as the Supreme Court — relying on Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 2030 — declared that it was well settled that judicial review was a basic and essential feature of the Constitution. If the power of judicial review were absolutely taken away, the Constitution would cease to be what it was.

The Court further declared that if a law made under Article 323A(1) were to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 without setting up an effective alternative institutional mechanism or arrangement for judicial review, it would be violative of the basic structure, and hence outside the constituent power of Parliament.

The Court concluded by holding that the same independence from executive pressure or influence must be ensured to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Administrative Tribunal; otherwise, the Administrative Tribunal would cease to be an equally effective and efficacious substitute for the High Court, and the provisions of the impugned Act would be rendered invalid.

The Court did not strike down the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, but — while making the judgment prospective — gave the Central Government an opportunity to amend the Act suitably within the stipulated time, to remove the difficulties found in the Act.

For the Common Man

The judgment at that time was of particular importance, as it sought to open ways for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism which, strictly speaking, did not fall within the ambit of courts. However, the impact of the judgment has been mitigated, as it has been overruled by L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.