9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the need to reconsider the judgment in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union India, 1987 (1) SCC 124 by a larger Bench.
Summary: The Supreme Court examined the validity of Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allows the Chairman or an authorized Member to function as a single Member Bench. The Court highlighted the importance of having a fresh look at the issues raised in the previous judgment of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union India, 1987, as it equated tribunals with High Courts, granting them jurisdiction over constitutional matters. The Court noted that a single Administrative Member alone is not competent to decide a case, emphasizing the need for a bench consisting of both Judicial and Administrative Members. The attention was drawn to Section 5(6) in subsequent cases, leading to the opinion that matters involving legal or constitutional questions should be assigned to a two-Member Bench. The validity of Section 5(6) was challenged, raising concerns about the exercise of judicial power by tribunals and their status compared to High Courts. The Court acknowledged the need for tribunals to have legal expertise but emphasized they cannot claim the status of High Courts. The Court concluded that a larger Bench should reexamine all issues, including whether tribunals can have an Administrative Member deciding constitutional matters, to uphold confidence in the judiciary. The Supreme Court directed the records to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate Bench to reconsider the issues raised in the judgment.
|
