S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 9 December 1986 · 5 judges · 1987 AIR 386; 1987 SCR (1) 435; 1987 SCC (1) 124
The Court upheld the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the Tribunal is an equally effective substitute for the High Court, and required changes to its composition and appointments.
Facts
Article 323A, inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, allowed Parliament to provide for administrative tribunals for service disputes and to exclude the jurisdiction of courts other than the Supreme Court under Article 136. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came into force on 1 November 1985, and Section 28 excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters. Writ petitions under Article 32 and transferred cases challenged the Act. After interim directions, the Act was amended to save the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, and the Attorney General gave further assurances on benches and on excluding court staff. The remaining challenges were to the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction and to the composition of the Tribunal and the mode of appointment of its Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and members.
Questions before the Court
- Is the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters by Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 unconstitutional as destroying judicial review?
- Do the composition of the Administrative Tribunal and the mode of appointment of its Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and members make the Act invalid?
What the Court held
- Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, but Parliament may replace the High Court with an alternative institutional mechanism for judicial review, provided it is no less effective than the High Court. Article 323A(2)(d) is read as requiring such an equally effective substitute.
- The bar on High Court jurisdiction in service matters is valid. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 136 is preserved, so judicial review is not wholly excluded, and the Tribunal is a substitute for, not an addition to, the High Court.
- The Tribunal must be a real substitute for the High Court in content as well as form. The Chairman's office is equated with that of a High Court Chief Justice. Section 6(1)(c), making a Secretary to Government eligible as Chairman, had to go: Misra, J. said it should be omitted, and Bhagwati, CJ held it invalid.
- Bhagwati, CJ required the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and administrative members to be appointed after meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), or by a high powered committee headed by the CJI or his nominee. Misra, J. required Vice-Chairmen and members, unless High Court Judges, to be chosen by a committee chaired by a Supreme Court Judge the CJI nominates.
- Benches, permanent or circuit, were to sit at the seat of every High Court, and the amendments indicated were to be made by 31 March 1987. The judgment operates prospectively and does not invalidate appointments already made.
Why it matters
The judgment accepts that Parliament may transfer the High Courts' power of judicial review in service matters to tribunals, while laying down that such a tribunal must be as effective as the High Court it replaces. It sets standards on the Chairman's qualifications, consultation with the Chief Justice of India and location of benches to secure the tribunal's independence, building on Minerva Mills on judicial review as a basic feature.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Therefore, if any constitutional amendment made by Parliament takes away from the High Court the power of judicial review in any particular area and vests it in any other institutional mechanism or authority, it would not be violative of the basic structure doctrine, so long as the essential condition is fulfilled, namely that the alternative institutional mechanism or authority set up by the parliamentary amendment is no less effective than the High Court.”
“It must, therefore, be read as implicit in this constitutional amendment that the law excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 permissible under it must not leave a void but it must set up another effective institutional mechanism or authority and vest the power of judicial review in it.”
“The Tribunal has been contemplated as a substitute and not as supplemental to the High Court in the scheme of administration of justice. To provide the Tribunal as an additional forum from where parties could go to the High Court would certainly have been a retrograde step considering the situation and circumstances to meet which the innovation has been brought about. Thus barring of the jurisdiction of the High Court can indeed not be a valid ground of attack.”
“I am, therefore, of the view that the appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and administrative members should be made by the concerned Government only after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and such consultation must be meaningful and effective and ordinarily the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India must be accepted unless there are cogent reasons, in which event the reasons must be disclosed to the Chief Justice of India and his response must be invited to such reasons.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 323A, Constitution
- Article 226, Constitution
- Article 227, Constitution
- Article 32, Constitution
- Article 136, Constitution
- Sections 6 and 28, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Related judgments
- Follows Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)“It is now well-settled as a result of the decision of this Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. & Others v. Union of India and Ors. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 206 that judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution” (page 6)
Case and bench
- Parties
- S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 12437 of 1985 etc. (Original Jurisdiction)
- Decided
- 9 December 1986
- Bench
- Bhagwati, P.N. (CJ), Misra Rangnath, Khalid, V. (J), Oza, G.L. (J), Dutt, M.M. (J)
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Ranganath Misra, J. wrote the main judgment; Bhagwati, CJ wrote a separate judgment in entire agreement with it, adding his own reasons; Khalid, Oza and Dutt, JJ. agreed with both judgments.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.