L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others

1. Factual Matrix & Genesis of Reference

By the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Parliament inserted Part XIV-A containing Articles 323A and 323B, enabling Parliament and State Legislatures to set up administrative and specialized tribunals for adjudication of disputes relating to public services, taxation, foreign exchange, industrial disputes, and land reforms. Crucially, Article 323A(2)(d) and Article 323B(3)(d) authorized the exclusionary clause: "exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, with respect to all or any of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the said tribunals."

Pursuant to Article 323A, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 28 of the 1985 Act enacted an express exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts, including the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, leaving only a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136.

The constitutional validity of the 1985 Act had earlier been upheld by a 5-Judge Constitution Bench in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124, on the premise that Tribunals could serve as effective, independent substitutes for High Courts. However, subsequent experience revealed widespread systemic challenges concerning tribunal independence, executive control over appointments, and the deprivation of litigants' access to local constitutional courts. In 1993, a 3-Judge Bench doubted Sampath Kumar and referred the question to a larger bench, leading to this authoritative 7-Judge Constitution Bench.

2. Fundamental Questions of Law Referred

1. Whether the power of judicial review conferred on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution?
2. Whether Article 323A(2)(d) and Article 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, to the extent they authorize exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and Supreme Court under Article 32, violate the Basic Structure?
3. Whether Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and similar exclusionary provisions in other Tribunal statutes are unconstitutional?
4. Whether Tribunals can exercise the power of judicial review to examine the constitutional validity of subordinate rules and primary enactments?

3. Key Findings & Ratio Decidendi

A. Judicial Review Under Articles 226/227 & 32 is Part of Basic Structure

The 7-Judge Bench unanimously reaffirmed the principles laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980), holding that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court is the cornerstone of democratic constitutionalism. The Court ruled that judicial review cannot be ousted or circumscribed by constitutional amendments:

"The power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded."

B. Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts Under Article 227 is Inviolable

The Court held that the power of superintendence possessed by High Courts over all courts and tribunals situated within their territorial jurisdiction under Article 227 is also part of the basic structure. The vesting of exclusive appellate review in the Supreme Court under Article 136 was inadequate, because Article 136 is an exceptional discretionary jurisdiction and does not guarantee an ordinary right of appeal, thereby overburdening the Apex Court and rendering judicial remedies distant and unaffordable for common citizens.

C. Institutional Role of Tribunals: Supplemental, Not Substitutional

The Supreme Court clarified that Tribunals are not and cannot be constitutional substitutes for the High Courts. Instead, they perform a supplemental role as courts of first instance:

• Tribunals can examine questions regarding the constitutional validity of subordinate legislations, executive notifications, and statutory rules.
• Tribunals can even examine the constitutional validity of parliamentary or state statutes, except the parent enactment under which that Tribunal is constituted (the Tribunal cannot question the very statute that creates it).
• However, all decisions rendered by Tribunals remain strictly subject to judicial review before a Division Bench of the High Court having territorial jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.

D. Procedural Roadmap: Exhaustion of High Court Division Bench Remedy

To preserve institutional harmony and prevent unnecessary bypass of High Courts, the Supreme Court mandated that no litigant may approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 136 against an order of an Administrative Tribunal. The aggrieved party must first file a writ petition before the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. Constitutional Impact & Subsequent Evolution

L. Chandra Kumar remains one of the greatest constitutional safeguards in Indian legal history. Its doctrine prevented the executive from bypassing the independent judiciary through the proliferation of administrative tribunals. Subsequent landmark judgments, including Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1 (striking down the National Tax Tribunal), have built directly on the bedrock established by L. Chandra Kumar.