Search results
After analysing the relevant constitutional provisions and the circumstances which led to the decision in Sampath Kumar's case, the referring Bench reached the conclusion that on account of the divergent views expressed by this Court in a series of cases decided after Sampath Kumar's case, the resulting situation warranted a "fresh look by a larger Bench over all the issues adjudicated by this Court in Sampath Kumar's case including the question whether the Tribunal can at all have an ...
- Brief Facts of L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India
- Issues in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India
- Summary of Arguments of The Petitioner
- Summary of Arguments of Respondents
- The Decision in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India
- Ratio Decidendi
- Conclusion
By the constitutional amendment (42nd) of 1916 Articles 323 A and 323 B were inserted into our constitution. Parliament with the power conferred by 323 A (1) enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1956. The central Administrative Tribunal was established by this act Before the establishment of the tribunal, a number of writ petitions had been fi...
1) Whether the power conferred upon parliament by article 323 A (2) (d) or state legislature by 323 B (3) (d) of the col, to totally exclude jurisdiction of all courts except that of supreme court (under art. 136) in respect of matters referred in 323 A (1) or 323 B (2), runs counter to power of judicial review conferred on High courts under articl...
A single-member bench of the Tribunal cannot be substituted to High CourtDecision in Sampat Kumar case was on the hope of effectiveness of tribunals But it is neither factually nor legally correct.High courts enjoy vast power under Art 215, 132 and 133 Not so for tribunals.Qualification of appointment of High court judges and members of Tribunals are not comparable.Jurisdiction under article 32 was not indented to be affected.Articles 323 A and 323B do not seek to exclude supervisory jurisdiction of High courts over all tribunals situated within their territorial jurisdiction.Pendency in High courts is a problem. So should remedied rather striking down.Kesavananda Bharati case shows inherent distinction between individual provisions and basic features of constitution separation of power is one of the banc features. It is also applicable in judici...Tribunals are competent to hear matters where vires of statutory provisions are questioned. Tribunal are not substitutes for Supreme court Or High court Their functions are supplementary. Their decisions are subjected to scrutiny before division bench of High court. Tribunals have power to test vires of subordinate legislations and rules except tha...
The power of judicial reviewover legislative action vested in High courts and the Supreme court under articles 226 and 32, and the power of judicial superintendence over decisions of all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction are basic structure of constitution. There is no blanket prohibition on the conferment of judicial power upon courts...
The decision of the Supreme court allowing tribunals (under Article 323 A&B) to function supplementary and parties to challenge decisions of tribunals before a division bench of the high court is a positive resolution as judicial review is basic structure of our constitution and it provides speedy trial to common people. References: [i]1987 SCR (3)...
L Chandra Kumar Case UPSC Notes:-Download PDF Here. L Chandra Kumar Case. The issues that were dealt with in this case emanated generally from the controversy that was generated by the constitutional amendments that inserted Articles 323A and 323B. These provisions essentially did away with the jurisdiction of High Courts in service matters.
(S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India) [1987] 1 SCC 124. During the pendency of the case, s.28 of the Act was amended interalia to save the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court took the view that most of the grounds of challenge including challenge to the constitutional. validity of
Sep 21, 2020 · State of Kerala case (1973). The decision in the case of Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (2016) was given on the hope that the Tribunals established would be effective and efficient substitutes but it was neither legally nor factually correct. It was held in this case that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which excludes the ...
The State quoted the Supreme Court judgment in the Sampath Kumar case, where the ld. court held that though judicial review is a basic feature of the constitution, vesting the power of judicial review in an alternative institution by taking it away from the High Court will not violate the basic structure.
People also ask
What is L Chandra Kumar case 1997?
What is Chandra Kumar v Union of India?
Did Chandrachud change the view in Kamgar Union v Union of India?
Was Sampath Kumar v Union of India a correct decision?
Did Chandrachud change the view of the Supreme Court?
What is the function of tribunal in Chandrakumar v Union of India?
L Chandra Kumar Case 1997 is the landmark case which establishes the validity of Articles 323A and 323B, which dealt with the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service affairs. The judgment mentions a frequently mentioned distinction between tribunals and courts of law. The Indian polity and legal system have changed due to numerous ...
