L. CHANDRA KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 02-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

L. CHANDRA KUMAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
DECEMBER 2, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, B. L. HANSARIA ANDS. B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 324-A and 324-B Administrative 
Tribunals Act 1985-Section 5(6) Constitutional validity of-Matters arising 
out of judgement of Constitution Bench in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of 
India, and subsequent decisions referred to larger Bench. 
In a matter involving an examination of Section 5(6) of the 
Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, this Court was confronted with 
wider issues relating to the composition, jurisdiction, power and 
authority of Tribunals constituted under Articles 324-A and 324-B. 
Referring the matter to a larger Bench, this Court 
HELD : In view of the decision in S. P. Sampath Kumar's case, by 
which a Constitution Bench of this Court decided the vires of the 
Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, and observations made therein, the 
·matter be placed before a larger Bench for reconsideration. Subsequent 
decisions on matters adjudicated upon in Sampath Kumar are also 
A 
B 
c 
D 
referred to the larger Bench. 
E 
The issues referred to larger Bench include. 
l. Whether Tribunals can be equated with High Courts. (263 BJ 
2. The jurisdiction, power and authority of Administrative 
Tribunals to adjudicate upon questions of constitutional validity of F 
legislations and of rules. [263 CJ 
3. Whether a Tribunal which has the power to decide on the 
constitutional validity of a statute or rule made under Article 309 can 
have an Administrative Member on its Bench. [265 CJ 
4. Whether the power of judicial review held to be available to 
Administrative Tribunals as per Sampath Kumar's Case violates the 
basic structure of the Constitution. [263 HJ 
S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, [1987J l SCC 124, referred 
G 
to a larger Bench alongwith J. B. Chopra v. Union of India, AIR (1987) H 
261 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
SC 357, Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 181, Dr. 
Mahabal Ram. v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, (1994) 2 SCC 
401, Sakinala Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) 1 APLJ 1 as 
'· -. assailed in C.A. No. 169 of 1994 which bas been referred to a 
Constitution Bench, M B. Majumdar v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 
2263 State of Orissa v. Bhagwan Sarangi S.LP. (C) No. 2129 of 1991 
B 
disposed of on October 1, 1991 and R.K Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 
sec 119. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 481of1989 
Etc. Etc. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.11.88 of the Madras High Court 
in W. P. No. 8673of1988. 
M. Rama Jois, N.N. Goswamy, V. Balachandran, T. Harish Kumar, V. 
Ramasubramanian, (Ms. Kiran Jethanand) S. R. Bhat, Ms. Sushma Suri, 
Pravin Choudhary, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, M. Veerappa, Hemant Shanna 
D 
and C.V.S. Rao for the appearing parties. 
E 
F 
G 
The following order of the Court was delivered: 
The challenge to the validity of Section 5 (6) of the Administrative 
Tribunals Act, 1985 (the 'Act') has unmasked greater issues, to examine 
which, we have come to the conclusion that the judgement of this Court in 
S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, [1987) 1 SCC 124, which is by a 
Constitution Bench of five learned Judges, needs to be reconsidered by a 
larger Bench. Our reasons follow. 
The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted Part 
XIV-A in the Constitution which contains Articles 323-A and 323-B. These· 
Articles conceive of setting up of various tribunals as adjudicatory bodies. 
They inter alia, contain provisions which enable, not only the Parliament 
. but even State legislatures, to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except 
that of this Court under Article 136 with respect to matters falling within 
the jurisdiction of the concerned tribunals. The Act came to be enacted by 
the Parliament in excercise of the powers conferred on it by Aricle 323-A 
of the Constitution. The vires of the Act was challenged before this Court 
which was upheld in Sampath Kumar's case. 
While upholding the validity of Secti6ii 28 of the Act in Sampath 
Kumar's case this Court took the view that the power of judicial review 
H' . need not always be excercised by regular courts !llld the same can be 
L. CHANDRAKUMAR v. U. 0. I. 
263 
excercised by an equally efficacious alternative mechanism. Apart from A 
making suggestions relating to the elgibility etc. of the persons who could 
be appointed as Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Members of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.