J. B. Chopra and Others v Union of India and Others (1986)

When Parliament set up the Central Administrative Tribunal to take over service disputes from the High Courts, one question followed at once: could a tribunal of this kind declare a service rule unconstitutional? If it could not, every employee raising an Article 14 or 16 point would have to go elsewhere, and the tribunal would be a half-remedy.

J. B. Chopra answers that the tribunal can. It is a short order, but it applies the Constitution Bench decision in S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India to the precise question of a rule framed by the President under the proviso to Article 309, and it is the case you cite for the proposition that the Administrative Tribunal may strike down such a rule for violating Articles 14 and 16(1).

A notification dated 15 March 1980 amended the Central Hindi Directorate (Class III and Class IV) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1961. The amendment reserved 100 per cent of vacancies in the post of Superintendent for Head Clerks, and so debarred Senior Stenographers from being considered for promotion to that post.

The petitioners attacked the notification as mala fide, arbitrary and irrational, and so offending Articles 14 and 16(1). The Central Administrative Tribunal dealt with the matter, and the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by special leave petition. Their contention before the Supreme Court was that the Administrative Tribunal had no authority or jurisdiction to strike down the impugned notification.

Because the question was of far-reaching importance, the Court issued notice to the Attorney-General, heard counsel at length and reserved judgment. It then deferred its judgment on learning that the same question had been argued before a Constitution Bench, whose judgment was awaited — that judgment was S.P. Sampath Kumar.

1. Does the Central Administrative Tribunal, constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, have authority and jurisdiction to strike down as unconstitutional a rule framed by the President under the proviso to Article 309 on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 16(1)?
2. How are ss. 14(1), 28 and 29(1) of the Act to be read in the light of Article 323A?

The special leave petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

What Sampath Kumar had decided

The Court set out the Constitution Bench's holding in S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India JT 1986 SC 996:

• The Act "is a law made by Parliament under Clause (1) of Article 323A to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution."
• Section 28, which bars the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court, is relatable to clause 2(d) of Article 323A.
• The tribunal set up under s. 4 of the Act "is a substitute of, and not supplemental to, the High Court providing an equally efficacious alternative remedy for adjudication of such disputes."
• Taking away the High Court's jurisdiction is not violative of judicial review as part of the basic structure, because s. 28 "preserves the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution."

Applying it

From this the Court drew the conclusion that decides the case: "It accordingly follows that the Administrative Tribunal being a substitute of the High Court had the necessary jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes relating to service matters including the power to deal with all questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of such laws as offending Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution"

The petitioners' contention that the tribunal could not strike down the notification of 15 March 1980 "must therefore fail."

Because the Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 is a substitute for the High Court in service matters, not a supplement to it, it has the jurisdiction, power and authority to decide the constitutional validity of service laws — including a rule framed by the President under the proviso to Article 309 — on the ground that they offend Articles 14 and 16(1).

• Direct question: Can an Administrative Tribunal decide the constitutional validity of a statutory rule? Discuss. Start with Article 323A and s. 28, state the Sampath Kumar "substitute, not supplemental" reasoning, then use J. B. Chopra as the application to a rule under the proviso to Article 309.
• Problem question: a government servant's promotion is blocked by a recruitment rule she says violates Article 16(1); the department argues the tribunal cannot declare a rule invalid. Answer: on J. B. Chopra, the tribunal has that power because it stands in the shoes of the High Court.
• Link in Unit 3: place this case in the story of tribunals and judicial review — the question whether tribunals may substitute for the High Courts, and on what condition, is the thread to follow into later decisions on Article 323A.