P. SAMBAMURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 20-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

·) 
·+ 
' ).-. 
~ 
I 
+ 
P. SAMBAMURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
DECEMBER 20, 1986/MA Y 5, 1987 
[P.N. BHAGWATI CJ., RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID, 
G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950--Art. 371-D, els. (3) and (5)-
Amending Power of Parliament-Exclusion of High Court's power of 
judicial review by an enactment-Not violative of basic structure 
doctrine-If the enactment provides for an equally effective and efficaci-
ous alternative mechanism or authority for judicial review-Proviso to 
cl. (5)-Conferring power on State Government-To modify or annul 
final order of Administrative Tribunal-Held, violative of basic 
structure doctrine, against concept of justice and principle of rule of 
law-Held, ultra vires the amending power of Parliament-Main part 
of cl.
1 (5 ), being closely inter-related With the proviso, held, a/so uncon-
stitutional and void. 
Administrative Law: State Administrative Tribunal-Power con-
ferred on government to modify or annul order of Tribunal-Held, 
violates rule of law as also basic structure doctrine and declared 
unconstitutional. 
Article 371-D was introduced in the Constitution by the Constitu-
tion (Thirty-Second Amendment) Act 1973, which came into force with 
effect from Isl July, 1974, and pursuant to cl.(3) thereof the President 
of India made an order on 19th May, 1975 constituting"" Administra-
tive Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh with jurisdiction to deal 
with service matters specified in that order. 
In these petitions under Art. 32, the petitioners challenged the 
validity of els. (3) & (5) of Art. 371-D. However, challenge lo cl. (3) was 
not pressed' and arguments confined only to cl. (5). 
Allowing the Petitions, 
A 
ll 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: (I) Clause (5) of Art. 371-D of the Constitution along 
with the Proviso Is dedared to be llllCObStlh1tional ud void. Tbe 
Government of India is directed to ensure that the necessary amend-
ment is carried out in the Presidential Order dated !9th May, 1975 so as H 
879 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] I S.C.R. 
A to bring it in confonnity. with the law laid down by this Court in the 
instant case. The Orders made by the State Government in exercise of 
the power conferred under the Proviso to cl. (5) of Art. 371-D shall be 
quashed and set aside. [890G-H] 
j . •. 
(2) Clause (5) of Art. 371-D provides that the order of the Ad-
B ministrative Tribunal finally disposing of the case shall becm;ne effective 
~· 
upon its confinnation by the State Government or on the expiry of three 
months from the date on which the order is made, whichever is earlier. 
This clause by itself could not be regarded as in any way rendering the. 
Administrative Tribunal less efficacious than the High Court because it 
would not . be an extra-ordinary or unusual provision to lay down a 
period of time during which an order made by a Tribunal may not be 
-(-
C given effect to, enabling the State Government either to make arrange-
ments for implementing the order of the Tribunal or to prefer an appeal 
against it, but what really introduces an infinnity in cl. (5) is the 
provision enacted in the Proviso, which says that the State Government 
may by special order made in writing for rasons to be specified therein, 
D modify or annnal any order of the AcbDinistrative Tribunal before it be-
comes effective and in such a ca<1e, the order of the A•l111i11N1 atlve Tribunal 
shall have effect only in such modified form or be ofno effect. [8870-G] 
(3) Invariably the State Government would be a party in every 
service dispute brought before the Administrative Tribunal and the 
E effect of the Proviso is that the State Government which is a party to the 
proceeding before the Administrative Trillunal and which contests the 
claim of the public servant who comes before the Administrative Tri-
bunal seeking redress of his grievance against the State Government 
would have the ultimate authority to uphold or reject the determination 
of the Administrative Tribunal. It would be open to the State Govern-
F ment, after it has lost before the Administrative Tribunal, to set at 
naught the decision given by the Administrative Tribunal against it. 
Such a provision is, to say the least, -shocking and is clearly subversive 
of the principles of justice. A party to the litigation cannot be given the 
power to over-ride the decision given by the Tribunal. It would be 
violating the basic concept of justice and make a mockery
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.