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 Tribunal is equally effective in exercising judicial review. It mandates amendments to the composition and appointment provisions of the Tribunal to ensure effectiveness and independence, directs the establishment of Tribunal benches at High Court seats, and acknowledges the exclusion of certain judicial employees from Tribunal jurisdiction. The judgment operates prospectively and does not invalidate existing appointments.

---

---

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.

---