Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997, the Supreme Court held that tribunal decisions cannot be made immune from scrutiny by constitutional courts. Judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and by the Supreme Court under Article 32, forms part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Constitutional rule

The Court invalidated, to the extent of exclusion, Article 323A(2)(d), Article 323B(3)(d) and Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Parliament may create tribunals, but it cannot exclude the constitutional judicial-review jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Route for challenging tribunal decisions

Every decision of a tribunal constituted under Articles 323A or 323B is subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal functions.

• Tribunals remain the fora of first instance in the fields assigned to them, so litigants ordinarily cannot bypass them and approach the High Court directly.
• Tribunals may examine the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, but a challenge to the statute creating the tribunal itself may be brought directly before the High Court.
• After the High Court decides the matter, the aggrieved party may seek the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136.

Institutional significance

Tribunals supplement rather than substitute the High Courts. The ruling preserves specialised adjudication while ensuring that tribunal decisions remain subject to supervision by the constitutional judiciary.