Administrative Law

Chandra Kumar v. Union of India

(1997) 3 SCC 261

Facts

Articles 323A and 323B allowed creation of tribunals for service and specialised disputes.
Laws made under these Articles excluded jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226/227.
Earlier, in S.P. Sampath Kumar, tribunals were treated as possible substitutes for High Courts.
The issue was reconsidered by a larger Bench in L. Chandra Kumar.

Judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226/227 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the basic structure.
This jurisdiction cannot be completely excluded.
Tribunals may exist, but only as supplementary bodies, not full substitutes for constitutional courts.

The Court accepted that tribunals are useful.
They reduce burden on courts and provide specialised expertise.
But the Court rejected the idea that tribunals can replace High Courts.
High Courts have constitutional status, independence, and supervisory power.
Tribunals are statutory/constitutional creations but do not enjoy the same structural safeguards.
Therefore, if tribunal decisions are made final and High Court review is excluded, judicial review would be weakened.
The Court held that clauses excluding High Court jurisdiction under Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) went too far.
At the same time, the Court did not abolish tribunals.
It gave them a first-instance role.
This means litigants must first approach the relevant tribunal.
After the tribunal decides, its decision can be challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls.
Tribunals can also examine constitutional validity of statutes/rules, except the validity of the statute creating that tribunal itself.
But their decisions remain subject to High Court scrutiny.

The Supreme Court held that exclusion of High Court and Supreme Court judicial review was unconstitutional.
Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d), and Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, were invalid to the extent they excluded Articles 226/227 and 32 jurisdiction.
Tribunals continue as courts of first instance.
High Courts retain supervisory judicial review.
Use this case for: tribunals can supplement but cannot replace constitutional courts.
Your PPT captures the contrast clearly: Sampath Kumar = tribunals as substitutes; L. Chandra Kumar = tribunals as supplementary, High Court review cannot be excluded.