TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar v. Union of India [1997] 228 ITR 725; [1997] 91 FJR 1; (1997) 3 SCC 261, section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter, "the Act" for short) does not survive and has been rendered unconstitutional or otiose. These questions of far-reaching implications to the administration of justice through Tribunals arise for consideration in these appeals. 2.. A cursory view of factual backdrop. An application (Contempt Application No. 562 of 1996 in O.A. No. 35574 of 1991) invoking the contempt jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under section 17 of the Act and seeking initiation of proceedings against the Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department was filed complaining of wilful disobedience by the latter of an order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the applicant. The Tribunal initiated the proceedings. The State of A.P. and the Principal Secretary filed a writ petition (C.W.P. No. 34841 of 1997) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh laying challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to take cognizance of the contempt case. In another matter an application (Contempt Case No. 1054 of 1998) invoking contempt jurisdiction of the High Court, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment of the High Court shows that the division Bench has traced the history of the establishment of Administrative Tribunal by referring to the relevant provisions of the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976, the Administrative Tribunals Act, and exploring the nature of contempt jurisdiction exercised by the superior courts for punishing the contempt of the courts and Tribunals subordinate to the High Courts. The High Court has extracted and reproduced extensively from the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 and also analysed in its own way the decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar [1997] 228 ITR 725; (1997) 3 SCC 261; [1997] 91 FJR 1, and therefrom drawn the following deductions (vide para 14 of the impugned judgment), which will be useful to reproduce so as to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court: "14. As such, it is clear that in the State, the High Court is the only superior court and the superior court of record. The High Court is the custodian of the dignity and majesty of law in the State, concerning not only itself but also all courts subordinate to it. Subordinate courts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l to that of High Court. Further, if the contempt power is exercised by the Administrative Tribunal, then under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the matter is directly appealable to the Supreme Court as of right and the decision thereon by the apex Court becomes final. It is incomprehensible that when the Supreme Court has ruled in Chandra Kumar's case [1997] 228 ITR 725 (SC); (1997) 3 SCC 261; [1997] 91 FTR 1 (SC) that no judgment rendered by the Administrative Tribunals in service matter can be directly appealable to the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution, the contempt jurisdiction still vests in the Administrative Tribunals, as in that event, the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court will be violated, as against the exercise of contempt power by the Administrative Tribunal, the matters have to go directly to the Supreme Court by way of appeal and that too, as of right. The contempt power cannot be exercised by the Administrative Tribunal concurrently with the High Court, as there is no such scheme either constitutional under article 215 or statutory under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We cannot also accede to the contention that the contempt power ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of any cases pending before any court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such Tribunals as would have been within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment; (f) repeal or amend any order made by the President under clause (3) of article 371-D; (g) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement of the orders of, such Tribunals. (3) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force." (Emphasis supplied) 7. In pursuance of article 323A of the Constitution the Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly disposing of an application or an appeal shall not be called in question in any court including a High Court. On a Tribunal being functional, section 28 excludes the jurisdiction of all courts, including High Court, but not the Supreme Court, Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or any other corresponding law from exercising any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 9.. Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India declare Supreme Court and every High Court to be a court of record having all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. These articles do not confer any new jurisdiction or status on the Supreme Court and the High Courts. They merely recognise a pre-existing situation that the Supreme Court and the High Courts are courts of record and by virtue of being courts of record have inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of themselves. Such inherent power to punish for contempt is summary. It is not governed or limited by any rules of procedure excepting the principles of natural justice. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to inflict a new type of punishment other than the one recognised and accepted by section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 11.. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [1997] 228 ITR 725 (SC); [1997] 91 FJR 1 (SC); (1997) 3 SCC 261, the matter had come up before the seven-Judge Bench of this Court consequent upon a reference made by a division Bench of this Court which doubted the correctness of a five-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124, and felt the need of the same being comprehensively reconsidered. This Court framed three broad issues for its consideration and proceeded to consider the constitutional validity of articles 323-A, 323-B and several provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We need not extensively reproduce several conclusions arrived at by the Constitution Bench (excepting where necessary); it would suffice to briefly summarise the conclusions of the Constitution Bench in so far as necessary for our purpose. The Constitution Bench held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court under articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution respectively, is a part of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onally conferred on courts and Tribunals. The Constitution Bench specifically overruled the plea that the Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations is questioned because that would defeat the very purpose of constituting the Tribunals. To allay the fears sought to be projected before the Constitution Bench, this Court held that the decisions of the Tribunal will be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under articles 226/227 of the Constitution before a division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls as this would serve dual purpose: (i) the power of the High Courts under articles 226/227 of the Constitution to judicially review the legislative action would be saved, and (ii) it will be ensured that frivolous claims were filtered through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal, and additionally the High Court will have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter (para 91). The Constitution Bench emphasised the necessity of ensuring that the High Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortant exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. 2.. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a division Bench of their respective High Courts. The Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted; meaning thereby that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. The Constitution Bench concluded as under: "...........we hold that clause (2)(d) of article 323A and clause (3)(d) of article 323B, to the extent they exclude the juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference to High Court or to file a complaint under sections 193, 219 and 228 of IPC as provided by section 30 of the Act. The High Court has proceeded on the reasoning that the Tribunal having been held to be subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of article 226/227 of the Constitution and its decisions having been subjected to judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226/227 of the Constitution the right to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order passed by the Tribunal punishing for contempt under section 17 of the Act was defeated and on these twin grounds section 17 of the Act became unworkable and unconstitutional. We do not find any basis for such conclusion or inference being drawn from the judgments of this Court in the cases of Supreme Court Bar Association (1998) 4 SCC 409 or L. Chandra Kumar [1997] 228 ITR 725; [1997] 91 FJR 1; (1997) 3 SCC 261, or any other decision of this Court. The Constitution Bench has in so many words said that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under article 226/227 could not be taken away by conferring the same on any court or Tribunal and jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the High Court now leg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ministrative Tribunals Act is a piece of legislation by reference. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act are not as if lifted and incorporated in the text of Administrative Tribunals Act (as is in the case of legislation by incorporation); they remain there where they are yet while reading the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act in the context of Tribunals, the same will be so read as to read the word "Tribunal" in place of the word "High Court" wherever it occurs, subject to the modifications set out in section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides for appeals. In its text also by virtue of section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the words "High Court" shall be read as "Tribunal". Here, by way of abundant caution, we make it clear that the concept of intra-Tribunal appeals, i.e., appeal from an order or decision of a member of a Tribunal sitting singly to a Bench of not less than two members of the Tribunal is alien to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The question of any order made under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by a member of the Tribunal sitting singly, if the rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fused with status and subordination. The Parliament was motivated to create new adjudicatory fora to provide new, cheap and fast-track adjudicatory systems and permitting them to function by tearing of the conventional shackles of strict rule of pleadings, strict rule of evidence, tardy trials, three/four-tier appeals, endless revisions and reviews-creating hurdles in fast flow of stream of justice. The Administrative Tribunals as established under article 323-A and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are an alternative institutional mechanism or authority, designed to be not less effective than the High Court, consistently with the amended constitutional scheme but at the same time not to negate judicial review jurisdiction of constitutional courts. Transfer of jurisdiction in specified matters from the High Court to the Administrative Tribunal equates the Tribunal with the High Court in so far as the exercise of judicial authority over the specified matters is concerned. That, however, does not assign the Administrative Tribunals a status equivalent to that of the High Court nor does that mean that for the purpose of judicial review or judicial superintendence they cannot be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aramount importance to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed as also regularity of the proceedings of all inferior criminal courts ". Such jurisdiction shall however be exercised in cases of grave miscarriage of justice, abuse of the process of the courts, the required statutory procedure not complied with, failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requiring correction lest grave miscarriage of justice should ensue. 20.. Section 30 of the Act was also referred to by the High Court to support its conclusions. Section 30 is merely declaratory of the proceedings before a Tribunal being judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Penal Code. By no stretch of reasoning, section 30 could have been held as impinging upon the power conferred on the Tribunal by section 17 of the Act and to hold further that in case of contempt of its lawful authority the only remedy available to Tribunal was to have recourse to section 30 to the exclusion of power to punish for contempt conferred by section 17. 21.. Contempt jurisdiction is exercised for the purpose of uphol....