Judicial review as a basic feature limits exclusion of High Court writ jurisdiction in service matters

The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 was held to form part of the basic structure through judicial review, so Article 323-A(2)(d) is unconstitutional to the extent it authorises exclusion of that jurisdiction in service matters. The abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Article 371-D was construed as ending the earlier tribunal arrangement, but it did not automatically revive High Court writ jurisdiction. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was also invalid to the extent it excluded Article 226 jurisdiction. The service disputes were left to be pursued before the statutory forum in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution of India, to the extent it empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in service matters, is constitutionally valid; (ii) Whether the abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Article 371-D revived the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters and whether Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 could exclude that jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether Article 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution of India, to the extent it empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in service matters, is constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The power of judicial review was treated as an integral part of the constitutional structure and as one of the basic features of the Constitution. The exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 was held to trench upon that basic feature. The Court rejected the view that the constituent power could validly transfer or extinguish the High Court's writ jurisdiction in favour of statutory tribunals, and held that constitutional courts alone remain the proper repositories of judicial review.

Conclusion: Article 323-A(2)(d) is unconstitutional to the extent it authorises exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether the abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Article 371-D revived the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters and whether Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 could exclude that jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Presidential order abolishing the earlier tribunal was construed harmoniously with Article 371-D and Article 323-A. The abolition order was held to terminate the earlier tribunal arrangement and not to revive the High Court's writ jurisdiction automatically. At the same time, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, insofar as it excluded the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, was held invalid for the same constitutional reason. The Court also declined to examine the individual merits of the pending matters because the petitioners had an effective alternative forum.

Conclusion: The earlier tribunal stood abrogated, but the High Court's jurisdiction was not revived on that account; Section 28 is unconstitutional only to the extent it excludes Article 226 jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge succeeded in part, preserving the High Court's writ jurisdiction while leaving the service disputes to be pursued before the statutory tribunal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, being part of the basic structure and the constitutional scheme of judicial review, cannot be excluded even by constitutional or statutory provisions that create alternative service tribunals.

---