Facts of the case
A seven-judge bench was set up to decide whether Parliament and State Legislatures could take away the power of judicial review from the High Courts and Supreme Court. This issue involved Article 226 (with Article 227) and Article 32, which give courts this power, against Article 323A(1) and Article 323B(2), which allow the legislature to limit it.
The bench also had to reconsider an earlier ruling in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987), which said judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution but can be transferred to an alternative body if it functions as a proper substitute for the High Court.
Issues of the case
The court focused on three key questions:
- Can Parliament and State Legislatures exclude the High Courts’ and Supreme Court’s power of judicial review?
- Do tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B have the authority to determine if a law is unconstitutional?
- Can these tribunals serve as effective substitutes for High Courts in judicial review?
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Petitioner’s Argument
- Unconstitutional Removal of High Court Powers
The petitioners argued that certain provisions in the Constitution (Article 323A(1) and Article 323B(2)) were unconstitutional. These clauses allowed Parliament to take away the jurisdiction of High Courts, which violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
They claimed that the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review under Article 32 and the High Courts’ authority under Articles 226 and 227 could not be removed.
- Failure of Tribunals as High Court Replacements
The earlier decision in Sampath Kumar’s case was based on the idea that tribunals could act as effective replacements for High Courts. However, in reality, this was neither legally nor practically correct.
Because tribunals had not functioned as expected, the petitioners argued that the law needed to be revised.
- Violation of the Constitution’s Basic Structure
The petitioners also argued that the challenged provisions weakened the supervisory power of High Courts over tribunals and lower courts. Since High Courts have an essential role in overseeing justice, taking away this power would violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution.
Respondent’s Argument
- Tribunals Are Not a Replacement, Just Additional Help
The government argued that tribunals were not meant to replace High Courts but to help manage the increasing number of legal cases.
Because courts were overwhelmed with cases, tribunals were introduced as an alternative forum to ease the burden.
- The Sampath Kumar Decision Was Correct
The Union argued that the Sampath Kumar case should not be overturned.
The Supreme Court had already reviewed the issue, suggested amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Act, and found the system satisfactory.
- Judicial Review Is Still Protected
The government contended that judicial review was not completely removed.
Even though High Courts’ power was affected, the Supreme Court still retained its authority under Article 136, meaning that the judiciary remained the ultimate decision-maker.
Since judicial power was still within the judiciary (and not transferred to the executive or legislature), there was no violation of constitutional principles.
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions in Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution were unconstitutional. Specifically, Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B were struck down because they attempted to remove the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226, 227, and 32. The Court emphasized that judicial review of legislative actions is a fundamental part of the Constitution’s basic structure, meaning it cannot be taken away.
The judgment also clarified that tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B have the authority to assess the constitutional validity of laws and rules. However, their decisions are not final. Instead of allowing direct appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 136, the Court established a new process. If someone is unhappy with a tribunal's decision, they must first challenge it in the High Court under Articles 226 or 227. Only after the High Court’s Division Bench has ruled on the matter can the aggrieved party approach the Supreme Court under Article 136. This ruling ensures that the power of judicial review remains with the higher judiciary while still allowing tribunals to function effectively.
Concluding Remark
The Court's ruling has important consequences. It clarified that lower court and tribunal judges lack the same constitutional protections as superior court judges, meaning they cannot fully replace higher courts in constitutional matters. However, tribunals can still assess the validity of laws as long as the High Courts and Supreme Court retain oversight. Tribunals were created for efficiency and specialization but must not replace High Courts in judicial review. While they can rule on subordinate legislation, they cannot declare their own founding laws unconstitutional. Lastly, direct access to higher courts is restricted, except in cases questioning the legitimacy of the parent statute.
