1986 (12) TMI 374 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of clause (5) of Article 371-D of the Constitution.
2. Power of the State Government to modify or annul orders of the Administrative Tribunal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Clause (5) of Article 371-D
The writ petitions initially challenged the constitutional validity of both clauses (3) and (5) of Article 371-D of the Constitution. However, the challenge to clause (3) was not pressed, and arguments were confined to clause (5). Clause (5) states that the order of the Administrative Tribunal becomes effective upon confirmation by the State Government or after three months from the date of the order, whichever is earlier. The proviso to clause (5) allows the State Government to modify or annul any order of the Administrative Tribunal before it becomes effective.

Issue 2: Power of the State Government to Modify or Annul Orders
The Court found that the power conferred on the State Government to modify or annul the orders of the Administrative Tribunal is "shocking and clearly subversive of the principles of justice." It violates the basic concept of justice by allowing a party to the litigation (the State Government) to override the decision of the Tribunal. This provision is also prone to abuse and misuse, as evidenced by the State Government's frequent and indiscriminate use of this power.

The Court emphasized that the power of judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution, which cannot be abrogated. The proviso to clause (5) undermines the effectiveness and efficacy of the Administrative Tribunal, making it less effective than the High Court in matters of judicial review. This renders the Administrative Tribunal a less effective institutional mechanism, violating the basic structure doctrine.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared clause (5) of Article 371-D, along with its proviso, unconstitutional and void. The Government of India was directed to amend the Presidential Order to conform with this judgment. Orders made by the State Government under the proviso to clause (5) were quashed and set aside. The Court also provided specific directions for the remand and reconsideration of cases affected by this judgment. The petitions were allowed, and the review petitions were disposed of accordingly.