Judicial Review as Part of the Basic Structure

Tribunals provide specialised and relatively speedy adjudication, but they do not replace the constitutional courts. High Court review under Articles 226 and 227 remains available because judicial review is part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be removed by ordinary legislation or constitutional amendment.

Constitutional basis

Under Article 226, High Courts may issue writs to enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights. Article 227 gives them supervisory jurisdiction over courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to the Constitution's specific exceptions.

• The Supreme Court's power under Article 32 and the High Courts' powers under Articles 226 and 227 protect constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.
• Tribunal decisions may therefore be examined for jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, legal error and constitutional invalidity.

Basic structure ruling

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a seven-judge Constitution Bench held that judicial review exercised by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and by the Supreme Court under Article 32, is an integral part of the basic structure.

• The Court invalidated, to the extent of exclusion, provisions under Articles 323A and 323B and corresponding legislation that excluded High Court jurisdiction over tribunal decisions.
• A constitutional amendment cannot make tribunals the final judges of legality by completely excluding scrutiny by constitutional courts.

Position of tribunals

Tribunals perform a supplementary, not substitutional, role in relation to High Courts. Their expertise and fact-finding functions are preserved, while judicial review maintains legality, constitutional uniformity and institutional accountability.

• Decisions of tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal concerned falls.
• High Courts do not ordinarily function as routine appellate forums under writ jurisdiction; the intensity of review depends on the nature of the legal or jurisdictional defect.