1986 (12) TMI 136 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutionality of Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction in Service Matters Upheld, Reforms Mandated

The judgment upholds the constitutionality of excluding High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters, provided the Administrative ... Judicial review as part of the basic structure - equally efficacious alternative institutional mechanism - exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 - constitutionality of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - composition and qualifications for tribunal members - mode of appointment and safeguards to secure judicial independence - requirement of tribunal presence at seats of High CourtsJudicial review as part of the basic structure - equally efficacious alternative institutional mechanism - exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 - constitutionality of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Validity of excluding the High Court's writ jurisdiction in specified service matters and vesting exclusive jurisdiction in Administrative Tribunals under the impugned Act. - HELD THAT: - Judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated. Parliament may, however, provide effective alternative institutional arrangements for judicial review under Article 323A provided the substitute is no less efficacious than the High Court. The exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters can be sustained only if the Administrative Tribunal established under the Act functions as an equally effective and efficacious forum for enforcing constitutional limitations and rights. Because the Act preserves the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 136, total judicial review is not foreclosed; nonetheless the Tribunal must in practice be a worthy substitute of the High Court in content as well as form to pass constitutional muster. [Paras 3, 5, 15, 16]Exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction in specified service matters is not per se unconstitutional provided the Administrative Tribunal is an equally efficacious substitute for the High Court in exercising judicial review.Composition and qualifications for tribunal members - requirement of judicial training and experience - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Section 6(1)(c) invalidated - Validity of prescribed qualifications for Chairman, Vice Chairman and members of the Administrative Tribunal and effect of those qualifications on the Tribunal's adequacy as a substitute for the High Court. - HELD THAT: - Service disputes frequently require judicial approach and expertise in constitutional questions (Articles 14, 15, 16, 311). The Chairman of the Tribunal must ordinarily be a person with judicial experience equivalent to a Chief Justice of a High Court; appointment of a Chairman who has merely been a Secretary to Government (without judicial training) undermines public confidence and makes the Tribunal less effective than the High Court. Clause (c) of Section 6(1) permitting appointment of a Secretary-to-Government as Chairman is therefore struck down. Similarly, a District Judge or an advocate qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge should be eligible to be Vice Chairman to secure parity with the High Court bench. [Paras 6, 7, 17, 18]Clause (c) of Section 6(1) is invalid; persons with appropriate judicial qualifications (including District Judges and advocates qualified for High Court judgeship) must be eligible to occupy leadership positions to ensure the Tribunal is an adequate substitute.Mode of appointment and safeguards to secure judicial independence - consultation with the Chief Justice of India or high-powered selection committee - requirement of benches at seats of High Courts - Validity of the appointment procedure for Chairman, Vice Chairman and administrative members and the necessity for tribunal benches at High Court seats. - HELD THAT: - Absolute, unfettered appointment power in the executive to select Chairman, Vice Chairman and administrative members creates risk of dependence on the executive and may impair independence and impartiality, especially as the Government will be a frequent litigant. To secure independence, appointments of Chairman, Vice Chairman and administrative members must be made only after meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of India or through a high-powered selection committee headed by a Supreme Court or nominated High Court Judge. Further, to function as an effective substitute for the High Court, permanent or circuit benches of the Tribunal should be provided at every place where there is a seat of a High Court; the Court directed these safeguards and structural measures to be implemented prospectively. [Paras 8, 9, 18, 20]Appointments must be made after meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of India or via a high-powered selection committee; permanent or circuit benches should be established at seats of High Courts. The directives operate prospectively and do not invalidate past appointments.Final Conclusion: The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, insofar as it excludes High Court jurisdiction in specified service matters, can be constitutionally sustained only if the Tribunal is an equally efficacious forum for judicial review. To that end clause (c) of Section 6(1) is invalid; eligibility for Vice Chairman must include District Judges and advocates qualified for High Court judgeship; appointments of Chairman, Vice Chairman and administrative members must follow meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of India or a high-powered selection committee; and permanent or circuit benches should be established at High Court seats. The Court's directions are prospective and do not disturb appointments already made. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of excluding High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters.2. Composition and appointment mode of the Administrative Tribunal.3. Establishment of Tribunal benches at High Court seats.4. Jurisdiction of Tribunals over employees of the Supreme Court and subordinate judiciary.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Excluding High Court Jurisdiction:The first issue pertains to whether the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters, as specified in Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is unconstitutional and void. The judgment emphasizes that judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution, as established in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. Judicial review ensures that every organ of the State acts within the limits of its power. The judgment concludes that while judicial review cannot be abrogated, Parliament can set up effective alternative institutional mechanisms for judicial review, provided they are no less efficacious than the High Court. Consequently, the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction is constitutional if the Administrative Tribunal is equally effective in exercising judicial review.2. Composition and Appointment Mode of the Administrative Tribunal:The second issue addresses whether the composition of the Administrative Tribunal and the mode of appointment of its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and members introduce a constitutional infirmity. The judgment highlights the necessity for legal training and judicial experience in adjudicating service matters, which often involve complex constitutional questions. The judgment agrees with the view that the Chairman should be or should have been a Judge of a High Court or have held the office of Vice-Chairman for at least two years. It strikes down the provision allowing a Secretary to the Government of India to be appointed as Chairman, as it would not inspire public confidence and would make the Tribunal less effective than the High Court. The judgment also suggests that a District Judge or an advocate qualified to be a High Court Judge should be eligible for appointment as Vice-Chairman. Furthermore, the mode of appointment should involve consultation with the Chief Justice of India or a high-powered selection committee headed by a Supreme Court Judge to ensure independence and impartiality.3. Establishment of Tribunal Benches at High Court Seats:The third issue involves the establishment of Tribunal benches at the seats of every High Court. The judgment directs the Government to set up a permanent or circuit bench of the Administrative Tribunal at every place where there is a seat of the High Court by 31st March 1987. This is necessary to ensure that the Tribunal is an equally effective substitute for the High Court.4. Jurisdiction of Tribunals Over Employees of the Supreme Court and Subordinate Judiciary:The fourth issue concerns whether Tribunals should have jurisdiction over employees of the Supreme Court and members of the subordinate judiciary. The judgment notes that the learned Attorney General assured the Court that Section 2(q) of the Act would be amended to exclude officers and servants of the Supreme Court and members and staff of the subordinate judiciary from the purview of the Act. This concession addresses the concern that Tribunal jurisdiction would interfere with the control vested in the High Courts under Article 235 of the Constitution.Conclusion:The judgment concludes that the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is constitutional if the Administrative Tribunal is equally effective. It mandates amendments to the composition and appointment provisions of the Tribunal to ensure its effectiveness and independence. The judgment also directs the establishment of Tribunal benches at High Court seats and acknowledges the concession to exclude certain judicial employees from Tribunal jurisdiction. The judgment operates prospectively and does not invalidate existing appointments.