1986 (12) TMI 171 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The authority and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to strike down a rule framed by the President of India as violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

Summary:
The Supreme Court, in a Special Leave Petition, considered the authority and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to strike down a rule framed by the President of India as violative of constitutional provisions. The Court examined Sections 14(1), 28, and 29(1) of the Act in light of Article 323A of the Constitution. The matter was deemed of far-reaching importance, leading to the issuance of a notice to the Attorney General for assistance. After hearing arguments from both parties, including the Union of India, the Court reserved judgment. Subsequently, it was brought to the Court's attention that a Constitution Bench had addressed a similar question in a separate case and its judgment was awaited, leading to a request to defer the judgment.

In the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., the Constitution Bench held that the Administrative Tribunals Act is a law made by Parliament under Article 323A, excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Section 28 of the Act, barring the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court, was found to be related to adjudication of service matters, including challenges to laws abridging fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Administrative Tribunal established under the Act was considered a substitute for the High Court, providing an alternative remedy for adjudication of disputes, including those related to constitutional validity. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was upheld, emphasizing that it did not violate the doctrine of judicial review, as it preserved the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the contention that the Administrative Tribunal lacked authority to strike down a notification amending recruitment rules, allegedly violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.