LexS.P. SAMPATH KUMAR ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)- S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DECEMBER 9, 1986 [P.N. BHAGWATI, CJ!, RANGANATH MISRA, V KHALID, B G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: ss. 4, 5, 6 & 28-Exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 in service matters- C~nstllutional ·validity of-Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members- Qua/ifications and mode of appointment to make the TribunaJ equally efficacious and effective alternative to the High Court-Benches pnd Circuits of C Tribunal-Setting up of. . Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 227, 32, 136, 323A and 368-Judicia/ review-Exclusion of-When permissible. • Clause (1) of Art. 323-A, brought in by Constitution ( 42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, authorised Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication or trial D by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints; with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services. Clause (2)( d) of that Article envisaged exclusi1,1n of the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 136 with respect to the E disputes or complaints referred to in cl. (1 ). Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 originally enacted within the ambit of Art. 323-A, provided for exclusion of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32. The Act as amended by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, replaced by Act No.19of1987 now F saves the jurisdiction of Supreme Court both under Art. 32 in respect of original proceedings as also ·under Art. 136 for entertaining appeals. Section 6(1) of the Act which lays down qualifications of Chairman, states tha.t he should be or have been (a) a Judge of a High Court, or (b) has for at least two years held office of Vice-Chairman, or (c) has for at least two years held the post of · Secretary to the Government of India. Sub-section (2) provides that a Vice- G Chairynan should be or have been (a) a Judge ofa High Court, or(b)for at least two years held the post of a Secretary to the Government oflndia, or (bb) for at least five years held the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, or (c) for a. period of not less than three years held office as a Judicial Member·of an Administrative Tribunal. Sub-section (3) states that the Judicial Member (a) should or should have been qualified to be a Judge of a High H 435 ' 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 1 S.C. R. A Court, or (b) has been a member of the Indian Legal Service, Grade 1; for at least three years. Sub-section (3A) provides that a person to he appointed as Administrative Member (a) should ~ave for at least two years held the post of Additional Secretary to ,the Government of India, or (b) has for at least three years held the post of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. B The petitioners in these writ petitions and transfer petitions challenged the vires of the 1985 Act. It was contended that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Cou_rt under Arts. 226 anil 227 in service matters specified in s.28 of the Act was unconstitutional and void, and that the composition of the Tribunal and mode of appointmmt of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and . -\ - Members was outside the scope of the power conferred on Parliament under C Art. 323-A. D Allowing the petitions in part, the Court, By the Court HELD: It is the High Court which is being supplanted by Administrative Tribunal. The office of Chairman of the Tribunal, therefore, for all practical purposes should be equated with the o llice of the Chief Justice of a High Court. Judicial discipline generated by experimce and training in an adequate dose is a necessary qualification for that post. It is thus essential that he should have been E a Judge of the High Court or he should have for at le~sttwoyears held office as Vice-Chairman. A person who has merely held the post of Secretary to the Government of India and who has no le\:"l and judicial experience if appointed Chairman would not only fail to inspire confidence in the public mind but would also render the Administrath e Tribunal a much less effective and efficacious mechanism than the High Court. Clause (c) of s.6(1) of the Act, F therefore, must be struck down as imalid. [445 C, 455 DE, 445 ABE] j. Per Bhagwati, C.J. 1.1 Judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution and no law passed by Parliament
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.