CASE COMMENT:

L. CHANDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

AIR 1997 S.C.1125

BY NISHANT HAZARE
UID No.: UG17-64
 Background of the case
There were enormous controversies regarding the constitutionality of Article 323A
and 323B as it was felt that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court in
relation to service matters was against the spirit of the Constitution.
In numerous cases right from Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala case to
Sampath Kumar’s case  and beyond the Courts have tried to set this controversy to
rest but in the process further creating more controversies.
However the matter finally rested in the landmark judgment of L. Chandra Kumar’s
case. A thorough discussion of this case goes a long way in clarifying the positions
of the Administrative Tribunals vis-a-vis the power of judicial review and the basic
structure of the Constitution.
 Facts of the case
• There were special leave petitions, civil appeals and writ petitions which formed a
batch of matters, brought before the Supreme Court in this case, owing their origin
to separate decisions of different High Courts and several provisions in different
enactments – thereby raising several distinct questions of law, which were
grouped together in this case for the purpose of adjudication upon them.
• These matters were broadly pertaining to- the constitutional validity of sub-clause
(d) of clause (2) of Article 323A and sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Article 323B
of the Constitution of India, 1950; and also in regards to the constitutional validity
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; moreover what was also the subject of
challenge was whether the Tribunals constituted under Part XIVA of the
Constitution of India can be effective substitutes for the High-Courts in
discharging the power of judicial review.
 Issues of the case
1.Whether the power conferred upon the Parliament by Article 323A (2) (d) or upon
the State Legislature by Article 323B (3) (d) of the Constitution of India, to totally
exclude the jurisdiction of ‘all courts’, except that of the Supreme Court under
Article 136 ?
• Whether the Tribunals constituted either under Article 323A or under Article 323B
of the Constitution, possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of a
statutory provision or rule?
• Whether the Tribunals, as they are functioning at present, can be said to be the
effective substitutes for the High Court in discharging the power of judicial
review? If not, what are the changes required to make them conform to their
founding objectives?
Conclusion