2.5. Judicial Review of Tribunals decisions

The Administrative Tribunals became an effective and real substitute for the High Courts In S. P. Sampath Kumar case (1987).

However, in 1997, a seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar case (as mentioned above) held that clause 2 (d) of article 323A and clause 3(d) of article 323B, to the extent they empower Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. The Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution.

All decisions of the Administrative Tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. As a result, orders of the Administrative Tribunals are being routinely appealed against in High Courts, whereas this was not the position prior to the L. Chandra Kumar’s case.

On 18th March 2006, the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Bill, 2006 was introduced in Rajya Sabha to amend the Act by incorporating therein, inter alia, provisions empowering the Central Government to abolish Administrative Tribunals, and for appeal to High Court to bring the Act in line with L. Chandra Kumar.

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 17th Report said that the appeal to High Court is unnecessary, and if a statutory appeal is to be provided it should lie to the Supreme Court only.

The Law Commission also took up the topic suo-moto and agreed with the opinion put forward by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.