Leading Cases For Supreme Court AOR Exams 2021 [Part 1 - Tribunals]

The Supreme Court announced that the Advocates On Record [AOR] Examination of this year will be conducted in December 2021. One paper of this examination is about 'leading cases' and the Court has itself issued a list of such cases. This article series intends to serve as a quick guide for wannabe AORs to crack the examination. It is noticed that the list provided by the Supreme Court contains cases in chronological order. In this article series, these cases have been sorted subjects wise. The first article deals with cases on the topic Tribunals [L. Chandra Kumar (9) - Rojer Mathew (55) - Madras Bar Association (64)]L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India Case Details: Appeal (Civil) 481 of 1980 ; 18 March 1997 ; CJI A.M. Ahmadi, Justices M.M. Punchhi, K. Ramaswamy, S.P. Bharucha, S. Saghir Ahmad, K. Venkataswami, K.T. ThomasCitations: [ AIR 1997 SC 1125 ; (1997) 3 SCC 261; (1997) 3 SCALE 40]Part XIVA of the Constitution was inserted through Section 46 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from March 1,1977. It comprised of two provisions, Articles 323A and 323B, to deal with Administrative tribunals and tribunals for other matters. Article 323A(2)(d) provided that a law made under clause (1) may exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in clause (1). Following this, the Centre enacted Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 28 of this Act originally provided for exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution. This provision was challenged before the Supreme Court in S.P Sampath Kumar v. Union of India.The five judge bench upheld the validity of Section 28 of the Act in Sampath Kumar case' by taking a view that the power of judicial review need not always be exercised by regular courts and the same can be exercised by an equally efficacious alternative mechanism. Later, in J.B. Chopra v. Union of India. relying upon Sampath Kumar, the Court held that the Tribunals have the jurisdiction, power and authority even to adjudicate upon questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of a rule framed by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They can even adjudicate on the vires of the Acts of Parliament and State Legislatures, it was held.In L. Chandra Kumar, a three judge bench, while considering the challenge to the validity of Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, took note of post-Sampath Kumar cases and said that they require a fresh look by a larger Bench over all the issues adjudicated in Sampath Kumar case including the question whether the Tribunal can at all have an Administrative Member on its Bench, if it were to have the power of even deciding constitutional validity of a statute or Rule? Thus the issues before the seven judge bench, which considered the reference were (1) whether the power conferred upon Parliament or the Stale Legislatures, as the case may be, by Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 323A or by Sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) of Article 323B of the Constitution, totally exclude the jurisdiction of 'all courts', except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136, in respect of disputes and complaints referred to in Clause (1) of Article 323A or with regard to all or any of the matters specified in Clause (2) of Article 323B, runs counter to the power of judicial review conferred on the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution? (2) Whether the Tribunals, constituted either under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the Constitution, possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of a statutory provision/rule?The court 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 Articles 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.", it was held.Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank LimitedCase Details: CA 8588 OF 2019; 13 November 2019; CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv...

Leading Cases For Supreme Court AOR Exams 2021 [Part 1 - Tribunals]

Ashok Kini

Tags