The landmark judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 1997 SC 1125] reinforced the inviolable principle that judicial review is an essential facet of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. By affirming the supremacy of the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32, the Supreme Court unequivocally underscored the foundational importance of judicial scrutiny over legislative and executive actions. This analysis traverses the intricate judicial reasoning in L. Chandra Kumar and contextualizes its tenets with pertinent precedents, particularly S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [AIR 1982 SC 149] and Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124].

Introduction
The Indian Constitution, in its magnificent edifice, enshrines judicial review as a cardinal principle, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and the preservation of the rule of law. The Supreme Court's verdict in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India epitomizes this constitutional ethos by fortifying the jurisdictional sanctity of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. This paper dissects the judicial pronouncements and doctrinal implications of this seminal case, placing it within the broader framework of constitutional jurisprudence.

Background and Facts of the Case
The case originated from challenges to the constitutionality of provisions in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which ousted the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court concerning matters that could be adjudicated by administrative tribunals. The petitioners contended that such provisions undermined the essence of judicial review, a cornerstone of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
The Core Holding of L. Chandra Kumar
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court, per Justice A.M. Ahmadi, held that the power of judicial review over legislative actions vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, forming part of its basic structure. The Court elucidated that the exclusion of the High Courts' and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction by the impugned provisions was unconstitutional. The judgment emphasized that the framers of the Constitution envisaged judicial review as a safeguard against the transgression of constitutional limits by the legislature and the executive.

Comparative Precedents
The Supreme Court's rationale drew strength from earlier landmark judgments. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [AIR 1982 SC 149], often referred to as the Judges' Transfer Case, the Court deliberated extensively on judicial independence and the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional governance. The case scrutinized the Central Government's authority concerning the non-extension and transfer of judges, concluding that judicial independence is pivotal for maintaining the balance of power.

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124] further fortified the premise that the right to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights is sacrosanct. The Court held that Article 32 embodies the right to constitutional remedies, a vital aspect of the basic structure, precluding any requirement to seek prior redress from High Courts under Article 226.

Constitutional Implications
The decision in L. Chandra Kumar reiterates that any attempt to curtail the jurisdiction of the higher judiciary impinges upon the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [AIR 1973 SC 1461]. The judiciary's role as the sentinel on the qui vive ensures that fundamental rights are not merely illusory but real and enforceable against the State's arbitrariness.

Conclusion
The judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India stands as a testament to the enduring principle that judicial review is the bedrock of constitutional democracy. By affirming the unassailable jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the verdict fortifies the checks and balances essential for the sustenance of the rule of law. This analysis underscores the indispensability of judicial scrutiny as a shield against potential constitutional transgressions, ensuring that the judiciary remains a bulwark of individual liberties and constitutional mandates.

References:

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
• Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.