Judicial review and tribunal powers: tribunals may test subordinate laws, but constitutional courts retain ultimate review authority.

The constitutional power of judicial review is part of the basic structure and cannot be wholly excluded. Tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B may examine the vires of statutory provisions and subordinate rules within their assigned field, but not the constitutionality of their parent enactments. Their role is supplementary, not substitutive, to the High Courts and Supreme Court, and their decisions remain subject to judicial review by the jurisdictional High Court. Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is valid when read to require constitutional and vires issues to be heard by a Bench of at least two Members, including a judicial Member.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 by Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution is valid; (ii) whether tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B can test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules; (iii) whether Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is valid and how the Tribunal system is to function in relation to constitutional scrutiny.

Issue (i): Whether the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 by Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution is valid.

Analysis: The power of judicial review over legislative action is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and forms part of its basic structure. The jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be wholly excluded. Tribunals may supplement, but not substitute, the constitutional courts in the exercise of judicial review. The exclusion clauses in the constitutional provisions, and the corresponding exclusion clause in Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, therefore cannot survive to the extent they bar constitutional review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 is unconstitutional to the extent indicated, and the challenge succeeds in part.

Issue (ii): Whether tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B can test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules.

Analysis: A tribunal created under a constitutional or statutory scheme is competent to examine the vires of statutory provisions and subordinate legislation within the field assigned to it. Such competence is compatible with the constitutional scheme so long as the tribunal functions as a court of first instance and its decisions remain subject to scrutiny by the High Court under Articles 226/227. However, a tribunal cannot pronounce upon the constitutionality of its parent statute itself.

Conclusion: Tribunals can test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, but not the vires of their parent enactments.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is valid and how the Tribunal system is to function in relation to constitutional scrutiny.

Analysis: Section 5(6) can be harmoniously construed with Section 5(2) so that questions involving constitutional interpretation or vires are not heard by a single-Member Bench and are instead placed before a Bench of at least two Members, one of whom must be judicial. This preserves the institutional competence of the Tribunal while protecting the quality of constitutional adjudication. The decisions of such Tribunals are to be subjected to judicial review by a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court, with further recourse to the Supreme Court thereafter.

Conclusion: Section 5(6) is valid when so construed, and the Tribunal system must operate as a supplementary forum subject to High Court judicial review.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional power of judicial review remains vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, Tribunals may decide constitutional and vires questions within their allotted field as a first instance forum, and their decisions are subject to scrutiny by the jurisdictional High Court; the matters were directed to be placed before appropriate Division Benches for decision on individual facts.

Ratio Decidendi: The basic structure of the Constitution preserves the High Courts' and Supreme Court's power of judicial review, and any tribunalised adjudicatory scheme can be valid only if it operates as a supplementary mechanism, not as an ouster of constitutional review.

---