Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The establishment of administrative tribunals, primarily through Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, aimed to provide specialized, speedy, and expert adjudication of disputes, particularly concerning government service matters, thereby reducing the burden on the regular judiciary. However, the landmark Supreme Court decision in **L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India (1997)** significantly altered the landscape of tribunal jurisprudence. The question asks whether this judgment, by subjecting tribunal decisions to judicial review by High Courts, inadvertently defeated the very purpose for which these specialized bodies were created.
The foundational objective behind administrative tribunals was to create adjudicatory bodies distinct from the regular court system, offering expertise and efficiency. Key aims included:
- Speedy Disposal: Resolving disputes faster than traditional courts.
- Expertise: Providing judges with specialized knowledge in specific fields (e.g., service law, taxation).
- Reduced Burden: Alleviating the backlog of cases in High Courts and the Supreme Court.
- Finality: Offering a more conclusive resolution, often with limited avenues for appeal.
The L. Chandra Kumar Judgment (1997)
In this pivotal case, the Supreme Court held that:
- Tribunals, regardless of their specific legislative origin (including those under Articles 323A and 323B), are subject to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- The power of judicial review is an essential, basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted. Tribunals cannot be final authorities, immune from judicial scrutiny.
Argument: Judgment Defeated the Raison d'être
Critics argue that the judgment undermined the core purpose of tribunals because:
- Dilution of Speed and Finality: Allowing High Courts to review tribunal decisions through writs reintroduces the potential for delays and appeals, negating the goal of swift resolution.
- Erosion of Specialization: Subjecting specialized tribunal decisions to review by generalist High Court judges might dilute the benefit of specialized expertise.
- Increased Litigation: It potentially opened another door for litigation, contrary to the objective of reducing the overall burden on the judicial system.
Counter-Argument: Judgment Upholds Constitutional Mandate
Conversely, the judgment can be seen as strengthening the constitutional framework:
- Ensuring Rule of Law: Judicial review is fundamental to ensuring that administrative actions, including those of tribunals, are lawful, rational, and fair.
- Constitutional Safeguard: It provided a crucial check against potential arbitrariness, bias, or jurisdictional errors by tribunals, protecting citizens' rights.
- Harmonization: The Court sought to harmonize the efficiency of tribunals with the constitutional guarantee of judicial oversight, rather than creating parallel, unaccountable adjudicatory bodies.
- Clarifying Scope: The judgment aimed to ensure High Courts intervene only on specific grounds (illegality, jurisdictional error), not as a routine appellate forum.
Conclusion
<p>In essence, the L. Chandra Kumar decision presented a dilemma: the drive for efficiency through specialized tribunals versus the constitutional imperative of judicial review. While bringing tribunals under the High Court's writ jurisdiction potentially impacts the speed and finality initially envisioned, it simultaneously reinforces the fundamental principles of accountability and the rule of law. Therefore, it is debatable whether the judgment truly "defeated" the purpose; arguably, it sought to integrate tribunals within the constitutional architecture, ensuring they function effectively while remaining accountable to the higher judiciary, thereby safeguarding substantive justice.</p>
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.