1993 (10) TMI 364 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 323-A.
2. Validity of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.
4. Effect of the abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal constituted under Article 371-D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 323-A:
The primary issue was whether Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 323-A, which allows the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136, is constitutional. The Court examined the constitutional framework, emphasizing the importance of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution. The Court referenced the landmark judgment in Keshavananda Bharathi, which established that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments. The Court concluded that the power of judicial review is integral to the Constitution and cannot be divested from High Courts, even by a constitutional amendment. Therefore, Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 323-A was declared unconstitutional to the extent it excludes the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.

2. Validity of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which excludes the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court and industrial courts in matters concerning service disputes, was scrutinized. The Court held that this section is unconstitutional because it divests the High Courts of their power of judicial review under Article 226. The Court emphasized that judicial review by constitutional courts is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be excluded by ordinary legislation. Thus, Section 28 was declared unconstitutional to the extent it excludes the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.

3. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226:
The Court reiterated that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution. This power ensures that the Legislature and the Executive do not transgress constitutional limitations. The Court noted that even though the Administrative Tribunals are efficient, they cannot replace the High Courts in exercising judicial review. The exclusion of High Courts' jurisdiction under Article 226 by Article 323-A(2)(d) and Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was therefore unconstitutional.

4. Effect of the abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal constituted under Article 371-D:
The Court examined the legal consequences of the abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was constituted under Article 371-D. The abolition order issued by the President on 25-10-1989, which transferred pending cases to the newly constituted tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was analyzed. The Court held that the abolition of the Tribunal under Article 371-D did not revive the jurisdiction of the High Court over service matters of State Government employees. The Court concluded that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975, stood abrogated with effect from 1-11-1989, and the jurisdiction over service matters now lies with the tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Conclusion:
The Court declared that Article 323-A(2)(d) and Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, are unconstitutional to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226. The petitioners were directed to approach the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial review by constitutional courts as a basic feature of the Constitution.

← Previous Next →