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 case in question where the Court held that judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution, could be vested in an alternative institutional mechanism as an effective substitute for High Courts is L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others 1997.

In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India addressed the contentious issue of whether tribunals and alternative institutions could effectively uphold the judicial review process. The judgment emphasized that although judicial review must remain an essential feature of the Constitution, the power of review could be transferred from the High Courts to an alternative mechanism. The condition here was that the alternative must be a real and effective substitute.

The background involves the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B into the Constitution, which allowed the creation of administrative tribunals for specific categories of disputes. Following these additions, numerous tribunals were established to deliver justice in various domains. However, the question arose regarding the adequacy and independence of these tribunals in exercising judicial review.

The Court clarified that when empowering tribunals with judicial review, they must operate independently and competently to maintain public confidence and ensure justice dispensation that meets constitutional standards.

Key Case Reference	Outcome
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others 1997	Judicial review can be vested in an alternative mechanism, provided it serves as an effective substitute.

This case importantly dictated that while the High Courts retain a supervisory role, the tribunals were required to provide an independent adjudicatory function that upheld the fundamental right to judicial review.

Answer 2

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is designed to handle disputes and complaints related to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State. However, its provisions do not apply to certain categories specified in the Act. We need to determine which individuals are excluded from the applicability of this Act.

Option Analysis:

1. Any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union: Members of the armed forces are excluded from the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as their services are governed by a separate set of rules and regulations.
2. Officer or servant of the Supreme Court or of any High Court or Courts subordinate: The administrative personnel of the judiciary, including officers and servants of the higher and subordinate courts, are outside the scope of the Act as they are subject to specific judicial service conduct and governance.
3. 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: The secretarial staff of legislative bodies have separate rules and regulations and hence are not governed by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
4. All of the above: This option implies that all mentioned categories are excluded. The Act indeed excludes all these specified groups from its ambit to ensure they are governed by their respective service rules and regulations.

Conclusion: The correct option per the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 exclusions is: Any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union. However, it's essential to recognize that the Act generally does not apply to all listed categories in All of the above, thus encompassing the complete exclusion list.

Answer 3

The first tribunal established in India is the Income tax Appellate Tribunal. This tribunal was set up in 1941, making it the oldest tribunal in the country. The role of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is to adjudicate disputes between the Income Tax Department and taxpayers. It was established to provide an efficient and systematic mechanism for resolving tax disputes, reflecting the intent to foster tax compliance and transparency in fiscal matters.

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

According to the comprehension, there have been recommendations to review and ensure the effective functioning of various tribunals established in India. Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Indian Constitution allow for the establishment of tribunals with the aim of expediting justice delivery. As expressed in the R.K. Jain v. Union of India case, there’s a need for continued evaluation and improvement of tribunal independence and effectiveness to enhance public confidence in their processes.

Answer 4

To understand the distinction between Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Indian Constitution concerning tribunals, let's break down their key aspects:

• Article 323-A: This article pertains exclusively to administrative tribunals. These tribunals are specifically meant to address disputes related to public service matters, such as issues involving government employees and public servants. The establishment of these tribunals falls under the purview of Parliament, allowing for a centralized mechanism to handle such cases.
• Article 323-B: In contrast, this article covers a broader spectrum. It authorizes the creation of tribunals that can deal with various subjects, including taxation, foreign exchange, industrial disputes, land reforms, and labor matters. Importantly, these tribunals can be established by both Parliament and State legislatures, as long as the subjects are within their legislative competence.

The correct statement reflecting the distinction between these articles is:

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.

Answer 5

The correct year when the National Green Tribunal Act was passed is 2010.

The decision to establish tribunals in India, such as the National Green Tribunal, comes from the understanding and recommendations expressed in various legal assessments, including those by Justices in cases like R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993. The Act and tribunal were deemed necessary to enhance specialized adjudication in the field of environmental law, ensuring that public confidence in such mechanisms is strengthened to improve the independence and quality of justice dispensed.