S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not per se unconstitutional, provided the alternative Tribunal is equally effective and independent. However, certain provisions (s.6(1)(c)) permitting a non-judicial person (Secretary to the Government of India) to be appointed as Chairman are invalid, and selection procedures must be amended to ensure judicial independence and efficacy of the Tribunal. Mandatory amendments are required to remove these defects, failing which the Act would be unconstitutional prospectively.

Parties
Petitioner: S.P. Sampath Kumar; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Judgment by Constitution Bench
Outcome
Petitions allowed in part. Clause (c) of s.6(1) struck down as invalid. Directions issued for amendments by 31st March 1987.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Validity of Exclusion of High Court Jurisdiction, Composition and Appointment of Administrative Tribunals
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Validity of Exclusion of High Court Jurisdiction Composition and Appointment of Administrative Tribunals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.P. Sampath Kumar

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Judgment by Constitution Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether the composition and mode of appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members of the Tribunal introduce a constitutional infirmity

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not per se unconstitutional, provided the alternative Tribunal is equally effective and independent. However, certain provisions (s.6(1)(c)) permitting a non-judicial person (Secretary to the Government of India) to be appointed as Chairman are invalid, and selection procedures must be amended to ensure judicial independence and efficacy of the Tribunal. Mandatory amendments are required to remove these defects, failing which the Act would be unconstitutional prospectively.

Court Disposition

Petitions allowed in part. Clause (c) of s.6(1) struck down as invalid. Directions issued for amendments by 31st March 1987.

Orders

  • Clause (c) of s.6(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 struck down as invalid.
  • Appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Administrative Members only after consultation with the Chief Justice of India or via a high-powered selection committee headed by or nominated by the Chief Justice of India.