1997 (3) TMI 90 - SC - Income Tax

Constitutional validity of section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985? Held that - Clause (2)(d) of article 323A and clause (3)(d) of article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the exclusion of jurisdiction clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of articles 323A and 323B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under article 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under article 323A and article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 and Supreme Court under Article 32 by Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d).
2. Competence of Tribunals to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions/rules.
3. Effectiveness of Tribunals as substitutes for High Courts in judicial review.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Exclusion of High Courts' Jurisdiction

The primary issue was whether the exclusion of the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 by Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution is constitutional. The judgment held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. It was concluded that the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be wholly excluded. The judgment emphasized that while the Tribunals can perform a supplemental role in judicial review, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Consequently, Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) were declared unconstitutional to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Competence of Tribunals to Test Constitutional Validity

The judgment affirmed that Tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. However, their decisions are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal falls. The judgment clarified that Tribunals cannot entertain questions regarding the vires of their parent statutes, which should be directly addressed by the High Courts. The Tribunals will continue to act as courts of first instance for the areas of law for which they have been constituted, but their decisions will be subject to High Court review.

Issue 3: Effectiveness of Tribunals as Substitutes for High Courts

The judgment acknowledged that the Tribunals, as they are functioning, have not been effective substitutes for the High Courts in discharging the power of judicial review. It was noted that the Tribunals have faced issues such as lack of competence, objectivity, judicial approach, and administrative supervision. The judgment recommended measures to improve the functioning of the Tribunals, including ensuring that they are manned by members with judicial experience and placing them under a single nodal Ministry, preferably the Ministry of Law, for better administrative supervision. The judgment also suggested that the decisions of the Tribunals be subject to review by a Division Bench of the High Court to ensure judicial oversight and maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion:

The judgment concluded that Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) are unconstitutional to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Tribunals have the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, but their decisions are subject to scrutiny by the High Courts. The Tribunals must function as effective supplemental bodies to the High Courts, and measures should be taken to improve their functioning and ensure judicial oversight. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the power of judicial review as an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

← Previous Next →