Judiciary - 2 Chapter Notes | Legal Studies for Class 12 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

Tribunals

Tribunals are quasi-judicial or semi-judicial bodies created to adjudicate specialised disputes. They are intended to provide a quicker, less formal and more cost-effective forum than ordinary courts. Tribunals usually consist of judicial members and technical or administrative experts; some members may not be full-time judges, but they perform adjudicatory functions in matters assigned to them by law.

Constitutional basis and legislative history

Tribunals were introduced into the constitutional scheme by constitutional amendment to enable specialised adjudication outside the ordinary court system and to reduce the burden on courts.

• The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Articles 323-A and 323-B into the Constitution, enabling the creation of administrative tribunals and tribunals for other matters.
• The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 gave statutory effect to administrative tribunals and led to the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) to decide service and related disputes of government employees.
• Decisions of tribunals are generally subject to judicial review by the High Courts (Division Bench) and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32/Article 136 respectively; the Supreme Court clarified this supervisory jurisdiction in cases such as L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

Matters for which tribunals may be constituted

Article 323-B authorises the legislature to set up tribunals for a range of subjects. Typical matters include:

• Taxation
• Foreign exchange and exports
• Industrial and labour disputes
• Land reform and tenancy laws
• Ceiling on urban property
• Election disputes involving members of Parliament and State legislatures
• Production, procurement, supply and distribution of foodstuffs and essential commodities
• Rent and tenancy issues

Differences between Articles 323-A and 323-B

• Subject-matter: Article 323-A deals specifically with administrative tribunals for deciding disputes and complaints regarding recruitment and service conditions of persons appointed to public services. Article 323-B permits tribunals for other matters mentioned in that article.
• Legislative authority: Tribunals under Article 323-A were envisaged to be created by Parliament; Article 323-B enables both Parliament and State Legislatures to create tribunals within their legislative competence.
• Source: Both Articles were inserted into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment (1976).

Objectives, procedure and examples

Tribunals are designed to be procedurally flexible so that cases are decided more quickly and cheaply than in regular courts. The main objectives are speedy disposal of cases, specialised expertise in particular subject areas, and reduction of litigation load on ordinary courts. Key examples of tribunals in India include:

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) - service matters of central government employees.
• State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) - service matters of state government employees.
• Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) - disputes in the telecom and broadcasting sectors.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT) - environmental disputes and issues involving environmental protection.

Some tribunals work alongside sectoral regulators. For example, TDSAT adjudicates disputes arising under telecom regulation, while the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) performs regulatory policymaking and oversight.

Although tribunals supplement the court system, they do not replace courts. Their decisions are subject to judicial review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure constitutional norms and fundamental rights are preserved.

Courts and Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive actions, and to invalidate those inconsistent with the Constitution. Judicial review enforces the rule of law, maintains separation of powers, and protects fundamental rights.

Origin - Marbury v. Madison

The principle of judicial review was established in the United States in Marbury v. Madison (1803). In that case the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, held that when a statute conflicts with the Constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary to declare the statute void. This case firmly embedded judicial review as a cornerstone of constitutional law in systems that follow a written constitution and strong separation of powers.

Meaning of judicial review

• Judicial review is the power of courts to examine and, where necessary, invalidate executive or legislative actions that contravene the constitution.
• Different legal systems vary: jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada and France allow courts to strike down legislation inconsistent with the Constitution, whereas in the United Kingdom parliamentary sovereignty limits such review of primary legislation.

Judicial review in India

India follows a model of constitutional supremacy with a separation of powers. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution. Judicial review in India operates through multiple provisions and doctrines:

• Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of inconsistency.
• Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights; Article 226 provides similar power to High Courts.
• Courts enforce rights and supervise executive action using principles such as natural justice, reasonableness, proportionality, and legitimate expectation.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment. The doctrine ensures that while Parliament has wide power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, that power is not unlimited.

Evolution of the doctrine - key cases

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Court changed course and held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights; Article 368 did not permit Parliament to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court framed the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that destroys its basic structure. Parliament can amend but not rewrite the Constitution's essential framework.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court applied the basic structure doctrine to strike down parts of the 39th Amendment that tried to place certain election disputes beyond judicial scrutiny.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court struck down provisions of the 42nd Amendment that were inconsistent with the basic structure and reaffirmed that judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are part of the basic structure.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Also known as the Mandal case, the Court upheld reservation for OBCs (27%) subject to conditions such as exclusion of the creamy layer and an overall cap on reservation. The Court recognised Rule of Law as a basic feature.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court restricted arbitrary use of Article 356 (President's Rule) and reaffirmed secularism and federalism as features of the basic structure.

Together, these cases show that the amendment power of Parliament is subject to judicial scrutiny to protect the Constitution's essential framework - democracy, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, rule of law and protection of fundamental rights.

Scope of Judicial Review in India

The scope of judicial review in India centres on three interrelated areas:

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Ensuring that laws and executive actions do not violate rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
2. Legislative Competence: Determining whether Parliament or State Legislatures have the competence to enact particular legislation (distribution of powers under Article 246).
3. Fairness of Executive Acts: Examining administrative decisions for compliance with principles of natural justice, reasonableness and proportionality.

Individual and group rights

Key constitutional provisions and remedies:

• Article 13(2) - laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void.
• Article 32 - direct access to the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights; the Court can issue writs including Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari.
• Article 226 - High Courts can also issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose.
• The courts expanded locus standi to permit Public Interest Litigation (PIL), enabling aggrieved citizens and public-spirited persons to approach courts on behalf of disadvantaged persons and for enforcement of public interest.

Centre-State relations and legislative competence

Judicial review adjudicates disputes about the distribution of legislative power under Article 246 and the three lists:

• Union List - subjects on which only Parliament may legislate.
• State List - subjects on which only State Legislatures may legislate.
• Concurrent List - subjects on which both Parliament and State Legislatures may legislate.

Court review ensures neither level of government encroaches impermissibly on the other's domain, thereby protecting the federal balance.

Fairness in executive acts

In judicial review of administrative action, Indian courts apply principles including natural justice (for example audi alteram partem - "hear the other side"), reasonableness, proportionality and legitimate expectation. Courts may grant relief where procedures are arbitrary, oppressive or violative of fundamental rights.

For example, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India the Supreme Court emphasised that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be just, fair and reasonable, linking Articles 14, 19 and 21 to form a protective "Golden Triangle" around personal liberty and related freedoms.

Selected case studies

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar

Background and facts: The case arose from petitions filed on behalf of hundreds of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been detained for long periods without trial and without effective legal representation. The matter highlighted serious delays in the criminal justice process and the plight of poor prisoners who could not secure bail or counsel.

Issues: Whether the right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and whether the State must provide legal aid to ensure equality of access to justice as envisaged by Article 39A.

Judgment and relief: The Court held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 and that the State has an obligation to provide free legal aid to those who cannot afford legal representation. The Court ordered release of certain undertrial prisoners and directed administrative steps to ensure speedy disposal of cases, the provision of legal aid, and public disclosure of court locations and pendency of cases.

Significance: The case expanded the scope of Article 21, stressed the importance of legal aid, and triggered reforms and public interest litigation as a tool for protecting rights of disadvantaged groups.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Brief facts: The passport of Maneka Gandhi was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer under the Passport Act without giving reason or opportunity to be heard. She challenged the action as violating her right to personal liberty and related freedoms.

Legal issues: Whether Article 21's protection of personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad; whether the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be reasonable; whether Articles 14, 19 and 21 must be read together.

Judgment (25 January 1978): The Supreme Court held that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is wide and substantive, and that the procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable. The Court read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together, holding that any restriction on personal liberty must satisfy the tests of equality, reasonableness and proportionality. In Maneka Gandhi's case the passport was impounded without giving her a proper opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice.

Effects: The judgment transformed the meaning of "procedure established by law" to include elements of due process, expanded the protection of personal liberty and reinforced the inter-relationship among fundamental rights.

Conclusion

The judiciary in India serves as the guardian and custodian of the Constitution. Through judicial review, the courts protect fundamental rights, maintain the federal balance, ensure fairness in administrative action, and safeguard the basic framework of the Constitution against abuse. Landmark judgments and doctrines - including the basic structure doctrine, expansion of Article 21, and the effective use of writs and PIL - have strengthened judicial protection of rights and the rule of law. A robust and independent judiciary is essential for constitutional governance, accountability of the executive and legislature, and access to justice for all.

Additional reading

Students should read full judgments of the following cases for deeper understanding and to prepare for examination-level questions:

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) - origin of judicial review in the United States.
• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) - evolution of the basic structure doctrine.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) - important applications of the doctrine and limits on amendment and executive power.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar - right to speedy trial and legal aid under Articles 21 and 39A.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) - expansion of Article 21 and the Golden Triangle (Articles 14, 19, 21).