Question

In which of the following case the Court held that though judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, the vesting of the power of judicial review in an alternative institutional mechanism, after taking it away from the High Courts, would not violate the basic structure so long as it was ensured that the alternative mechanism was an effective and real substitute for the High Court?

• A. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others 1997
• B. R.K. Jain v. Union of India 1993
• C. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India 1985
• D. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973
• A. Any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union
• B. Officer or servant of the Supreme Court or of any High Court or Courts subordinate
• C. Person appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament or to the secretarial staff of any State Legislature or a House thereof or, in the case of a Union Territory having a Legislature, of that Legislature
• D. All of the above
• A. Central Administrative Tribunal
• B. Railway Claims Tribunal
• C. Armed Forces Tribunal
• D. Income tax Appellate Tribunal
• A. Article 323-A exclusively deals with administrative tribunals for public service matters, while Article 323-B deals with the tribunals for a wider range of subjects including taxation and land reforms
• B. While tribunals under Article 323-A can be established only by Parliament, tribunals under Article 323-B can only be established by State legislature, with matters falling within their legislative competence
• C. Under Article 323-A, only one tribunal for centre and no tribunal for state may be established. As far as Article 323-B is concerned, there is no hierarchy of tribunals
• D. Article 323-A grant tribunals the power to hear appeals directly from the Supreme Court, by passing the High Court. Under Article 323-B there is no such power
• A. 2007
• B. 2008
• C. 2009
• D. 2010

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The legal precedent, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others 1997, addressed whether judicial review, a core constitutional element, could be delegated to an alternative institutional structure, functioning as a suitable replacement for High Courts.

The Indian Supreme Court's ruling in this significant case focused on tribunals and alternative bodies' capacity to conduct judicial review. The court affirmed that judicial review is constitutionally essential, but the power could be moved from High Courts to an alternative, provided the alternative was a genuine and effective substitute.

This case stemmed from the addition of Articles 323-A and 323-B to the Constitution, enabling administrative tribunals for certain disputes. Subsequent to this, various tribunals were established to administer justice in various areas. The question of these tribunals' adequacy and independence in exercising judicial review was then raised.

The Court specified that tribunals, when granted judicial review authority, must function independently and competently to maintain public trust and provide justice that satisfies constitutional requirements.

Key Case Reference	Outcome
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others 1997	Judicial review can be delegated to an alternative mechanism, provided it is an effective substitute.

The ruling clarified that while High Courts retain oversight, the tribunals had to independently adjudicate and uphold the fundamental right to judicial review.

Answer 2

The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 addresses service-related disputes for Union and State public servants, excluding specific groups. This analysis identifies those excluded from the Act's purview.

Option Analysis:

1. Armed Forces Personnel: Naval, military, air force, and other armed forces members are exempt due to their separate regulations.
2. Judicial Staff: Supreme Court, High Court, and subordinate court officers and staff are excluded, governed by judicial service rules.
3. Legislative Staff: Secretarial staff of Parliament, State Legislatures, and Union Territory Legislatures are also excluded, having their own regulations.
4. All of the above: This option signifies that all previously mentioned groups are excluded. The Act excludes all these groups.

Conclusion: As per the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985, Armed Forces Personnel is the primary exclusion. However, the Act generally does not apply to all categories listed in All of the above, representing the full exclusion scope.

Answer 3

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holds the distinction of being India's first tribunal, founded in 1941. This makes it the earliest established tribunal in the nation. Its primary function is to resolve disagreements between the Income Tax Department and taxpayers. The tribunal's creation aimed to offer a streamlined and structured method for settling tax-related conflicts, thereby encouraging tax compliance and transparency in financial operations.

Tribunal	Year Established
Income tax Appellate Tribunal	1941
Central Administrative Tribunal	1985
Railway Claims Tribunal	1987
Armed Forces Tribunal	2009

The comprehension highlights recommendations for reviewing and ensuring the efficient operation of various Indian tribunals. The Indian Constitution's Articles 323-A and 323-B provide the legal basis for establishing tribunals to accelerate the delivery of justice. As emphasized in the R.K. Jain v. Union of India case, continuous assessment and enhancement of tribunal independence and effectiveness are crucial for maintaining public trust in their procedures.

Answer 4

Here's a breakdown of Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Indian Constitution, which concern tribunals:

• Article 323-A: This focuses solely on administrative tribunals. These tribunals specifically handle disputes related to public service matters, like those involving government employees. Parliament establishes these tribunals, creating a centralized system.
• Article 323-B: This article is broader. It allows for tribunals dealing with various subjects, including taxation, foreign exchange, industrial disputes, land reforms, and labor matters. Both Parliament and State legislatures can establish these tribunals, provided the subjects are within their legislative authority.

The key difference between these articles can be summarized as:

Article 323-A exclusively addresses administrative tribunals for public service, whereas Article 323-B encompasses tribunals for a wider array of subjects, such as taxation and land reforms.

Answer 5

The National Green Tribunal Act was enacted in 2010.

The establishment of tribunals like the National Green Tribunal in India was based on legal evaluations and recommendations, including those from cases such as R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993. This Act and tribunal were created to improve specialized environmental law adjudication, thereby increasing public trust in these independent justice systems and enhancing the quality of justice provided.