The Supreme Court's decision in Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, redefined the balance of powers in India's judicial structure, particularly concerning the role of administrative tribunals. This landmark judgment declared that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B do not replace the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This article explores the background, key issues, judgment, and the implications of this case on administrative tribunals and judicial review.

Introduction
The Chandra Kumar case was a pivotal moment in the Indian judicial landscape. The case primarily addressed whether administrative tribunals, created to handle service disputes and specific matters, could exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court as stipulated under Articles 323A and 323B. The ruling reaffirmed the principle of judicial review as an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court not only safeguarded the supervisory power of the High Courts but also ensured that citizens retain access to constitutional courts to challenge administrative actions.

Background of the Case
The Parliament introduced Articles 323A and 323B by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, allowing the creation of tribunals to reduce the burden on regular courts. Under these provisions, several tribunals were set up, such as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), to resolve specific disputes in areas like service matters and taxation. However, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 barred High Court jurisdiction in cases within the tribunal's purview. This exclusivity raised constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers and the authority of High Courts to exercise judicial review.

A series of cases questioning the constitutionality of these tribunals eventually led to Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court had to clarify the jurisdiction of High Courts in relation to tribunals established under Articles 323A and 323B.

Key Issues Raised
The primary issues before the Supreme Court in Chandra Kumar were as follows:

• Whether Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which bars the jurisdiction of High Courts, was constitutionally valid.
• Whether Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, allowing Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts, violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Whether the tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B could act as effective substitutes for High Courts in the context of judicial review.

Judgment
The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justices K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, S.P. Bharucha, S.B. Majmudar, and B.N. Kirpal, delivered the judgment. The Court made several key observations and findings:

• Judicial Review as Part of the Basic Structure: The Court held that judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Constitution. The power vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the Constitution's basic structure. This doctrine was previously established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225] and reaffirmed in this case.
   
• Invalidity of Section 28 and Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d): The Court ruled that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which barred the jurisdiction of the High Courts, was unconstitutional. Similarly, Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) were held to be unconstitutional insofar as they excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court.
   
• Role of Tribunals: Although the Court supported the establishment of tribunals to reduce the burden on the judiciary, it held that tribunals could not entirely replace High Courts for the purpose of judicial review. Tribunals could serve as the first forum for certain matters, but their decisions should be subject to the scrutiny of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
   
• Independence and Functioning of Tribunals: The Court emphasized the need for tribunals to function with autonomy and adhere to the standards of independence comparable to the judiciary. Additionally, it stressed the importance of having members with judicial expertise to ensure fairness and legal accuracy.
   
• Final Order: The Court declared that the High Courts' power of judicial review could not be ousted by any statute. Therefore, any decision made by administrative tribunals would be subject to scrutiny by the High Court within its jurisdiction. This ruling effectively limited the extent to which Parliament could use Articles 323A and 323B to vest exclusive jurisdiction in tribunals.
   
• Relevant Provisions and Statutes:
  • Articles of the Indian Constitution:
    • Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies, granting individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights.
    • Article 226: Grants High Courts the power to issue orders, writs, and directions to enforce rights and review administrative actions.
    • Article 227: Confers supervisory jurisdiction on High Courts over subordinate courts and tribunals.
    • Articles 323A and 323B: Allow for the establishment of administrative tribunals with jurisdiction over specific disputes, including service matters (Article 323A) and other specified matters (Article 323B).
  • Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
    • Section 28: Prohibited jurisdiction of High Courts in matters handled by the tribunals, which was declared unconstitutional in the present case.
       
• Implications of the Judgment: The ruling in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India had a profound impact on India's administrative law system:
  • Protection of Judicial Review: By reaffirming judicial review as part of the basic structure, the Court ensured that citizens could always seek redress against administrative or quasi-judicial decisions.
  • Restructuring Tribunal Functioning: The judgment necessitated changes in the administrative tribunal system, leading to greater autonomy, better judicial qualifications of members, and more transparent functioning.
  • Relief from Judicial Backlog, Yet Ensuring Oversight: While endorsing the establishment of tribunals to alleviate the workload of High Courts, the ruling also ensured that tribunals remained accountable, as High Courts retained supervisory jurisdiction.
  • Impact on Future Legislation: The judgment underscored that any attempt by Parliament to limit the High Courts' power of judicial review through legislation would be unconstitutional. This principle has guided the structuring of tribunals in various fields, such as taxation, securities, and environmental matters.

Conclusion
The Chandra Kumar judgment is a cornerstone in the annals of Indian constitutional law. It preserved the principle of judicial review, thereby safeguarding individual rights against potential overreach by administrative tribunals. The Supreme Court's decision struck a balance between reducing the judicial backlog and maintaining judicial oversight.

By declaring judicial review as an unassailable feature of the Constitution, Chandra Kumar fortified the doctrine of checks and balances, ensuring that the High Courts continue to serve as the ultimate guardians of the rule of law. This landmark decision has since influenced the development of administrative law in India, affirming that while tribunals can assist in judicial processes, they cannot entirely replace the judiciary's oversight.