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. Kesvananda Bharti 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. Officers of the Indian Police Services.
• A. Central Administrative Tribunal
• B. Railway Claims Tribunal
• C. Armed Forces Tribunal
• D. Income tax Appellate Tribunal
• A. Article 323A exclusively deals with administrative tribunals for public service matters, while Article 323B deals with the tribunals for a wider range of subjects including taxation and land reforms.
• B. While tribunals under Article 323A can be established only by Parliament, tribunals under Article 323B can only be established by State legislature, with matters falling within their legislative competence.
• C. Under Article 323A, only one tribunal for centre and no tribunal for state may be established. As far as Article 323B is concerned, there is no hierarchy of tribunals.
• D. Article 323A grant tribunals the power to hear appeals directly from the Supreme Court, by passing the high court. Under Article 323B there is no such power.
• A. Parliamentary Standing Committee
• B. National Tribunals Commission
• C. Swaran Singh Committee
• D. Law commission of India's 272nd Report

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the case in which the Supreme Court first upheld the constitutionality of tribunals (under Article 323A) as an alternative to High Courts for judicial review, provided they were an "effective and real substitute."
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
(A) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): This case overruled the position in S.P. Sampath Kumar. It held that tribunals cannot completely replace High Courts. The power of judicial review of High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away. It established that tribunals would act as courts of the first instance, with their decisions being subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
(B) R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1993): The passage provided is from this case. While it expresses concern over the functioning of tribunals, it does not lay down the specific principle mentioned in the question.
(C) S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1985): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the concept of tribunals under Article 323A. It was in this judgment that the court held that ousting the jurisdiction of the High Courts would be permissible if the newly created tribunal was an "effective and real substitute" for the High Court. This was the initial legal position before it was modified by the L. Chandra Kumar case.
(D) Kesvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973): This case is famous for establishing the "basic structure doctrine," which holds that Parliament cannot amend the essential features of the Constitution. While it declared judicial review to be a part of the basic structure, it did not deal with the specific issue of tribunals as alternative mechanisms.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The principle described in the question was laid down in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India.

Answer 2

The question asks which case first established that shifting judicial review away from the High Courts to an alternative tribunal is permissible, so long as that tribunal is an effective and real substitute for the High Court. Each option is checked below.

1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Of India And Others 1997: This case actually moved in the opposite direction. It held that tribunals cannot fully replace the High Courts, and that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded altogether. It made tribunal decisions subject to further review by the High Court, so this case is not the one that introduced the "effective and real substitute" test; it is the case that cut back on tribunal power.
2. R.K. Jain v. Union of India: 1993: This case raised concerns about how tribunals were actually functioning in practice and questioned whether the alternative mechanism was working well, but it did not lay down the original legal principle that an effective and real substitute for the High Court would satisfy the basic structure requirement.
3. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India: (1985): This is the case where the Supreme Court upheld the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and held that Parliament could vest judicial review power in a tribunal instead of the High Court, provided the tribunal functioned as an effective and real substitute, offering the same quality of adjudication. This directly matches the principle described in the question.
4. Kesvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala. 1973: This case is where the basic structure doctrine itself was born, and it did establish that judicial review is part of the basic structure. But it was decided years before the tribunal system existed and did not deal with whether a tribunal could stand in for the High Court.

Only the 1985 case actually deals with tribunals replacing High Court review and sets the "effective and real substitute" condition for that replacement to be valid.

Therefore, the correct answer is S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India: (1985).

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks which category of personnel is covered by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by asking which category it shall NOT apply to (implying the question seeks the category that IS subject to the Act, based on common question formats, but let's analyze based on the literal meaning). Section 2 of the Act lists the exclusions. The question is asking to identify the category that is not in the exclusion list. Let's re-read the question: "shall NOT apply to-". This means it's asking for a category that is excluded. Oh wait, options A, B, and C are all explicitly excluded by Section 2. Option D is not. So the question is likely phrased incorrectly, it should probably be "The provisions ... shall apply to-". However, assuming the question wants us to pick the odd one out: A, B, and C are excluded. D is included. The question asks what the Act shall NOT apply to. This implies that D is the incorrect answer for the exclusion list. There seems to be an error in the question's framing. Assuming the question intended to ask "Which of the following is NOT exempted from the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?", the answer would be (D). Let's work with the most logical interpretation: find the group whose service matters ARE heard by the Administrative Tribunal.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, explicitly states the Act shall not apply to certain categories of persons. These include:
- (a) Any member of the naval, military or air forces, or of any other armed forces of the Union. (This matches option A).
- (b) Any officer or servant of the Supreme Court or of any High Court. (This matches option B).
- (c) Any person appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament or the secretarial staff of any State Legislature. (This matches option C).
The Act is designed to cover service matters of persons appointed to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union. Officers of the Indian Police Services (IPS) fall under the category of All India Services and their service matters are adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Therefore, the Act applies to them; they are not excluded.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The Act shall not apply to the categories mentioned in (A), (B), and (C). It does apply to the category in (D). Given the options, the question is likely flawed, but the intended answer is (D) as the category that is NOT excluded from the Act's purview. Therefore, the statement "The provisions ... shall NOT apply to Officers of the Indian Police Services" is false, making it the answer.

Answer 4

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, lists specific categories of persons who fall outside its coverage. The question asks which of the four listed categories is the one the Act does NOT exclude, meaning the Act actually does apply to them. Each option is checked against the exclusion list in the Act.

1. Any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union: This category is expressly listed among the persons to whom the Act does not apply, since members of the armed forces have their own separate service law framework and are not meant to be covered by this Act.
2. Officer or servant of the Supreme Court or of any High Court or Courts subordinate: This category is also expressly excluded. Judicial staff attached to the Supreme Court, High Courts, or subordinate courts are kept outside the Act's reach, since their service matters are handled separately.
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: This category is likewise expressly excluded, since legislative secretariat staff are treated as a distinct group outside the Act's coverage.
4. Officers of the Indian Police Services: Unlike the three categories above, IPS officers are not named anywhere in the Act's list of exclusions. As members of an All India Service, their service matters concerning recruitment and conditions of service fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, meaning the Act does apply to them rather than exempting them.

Since the first three categories are all explicitly carved out of the Act while officers of the Indian Police Services are not, the fourth option is the one category the Act actually covers rather than excludes.

Therefore, the correct answer is Officers of the Indian Police Services.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the earliest established tribunal from the given options.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's look at the establishment dates of the tribunals listed:
(A) Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Established in 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(B) Railway Claims Tribunal: Established in 1987 under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
(C) Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): Established in 2009 under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
(D) Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): Established in January 1941. It was the first-ever tribunal to be created in India and is often referred to as the 'Mother Tribunal'.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Comparing the establishment dates, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is the oldest and was the first tribunal established in India among the given options.

Answer 6

This question wants us to pick which of the four tribunals came into existence first. The way to settle it is to line up when each one was actually set up, not by how well known each is today.

1. Central Administrative Tribunal: The CAT was set up in 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to handle service disputes of central government employees. That is a full four decades after independence, so it cannot be the first.
2. Railway Claims Tribunal: This tribunal was created in 1989 under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, to deal with claims for compensation in railway accidents and freight disputes. It came even later than the CAT.
3. Armed Forces Tribunal: The AFT was established in 2009 under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to hear service matters of army, navy, and air force personnel. Among the four, this is the most recent.
4. Income tax Appellate Tribunal: The ITAT was set up in January 1941, under British rule, to hear appeals against orders of income tax authorities. This predates every other option by decades and is why it carries the informal title of the "mother tribunal" in India.

Once the dates are placed side by side, 1941 is clearly the earliest of the four, so the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was the first tribunal set up in India.

Therefore, the correct answer is Income tax Appellate Tribunal.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question requires identifying the correct statement that distinguishes between Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
(A) This statement is correct. Article 323A is specific and narrow in scope; it empowers Parliament to create tribunals solely for disputes relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of public servants. Article 323B has a much wider scope, allowing for the creation of tribunals for several other matters, such as taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, ceiling on urban property, etc.
(B) This statement is incorrect. Tribunals under Article 323A can only be established by Parliament. However, tribunals under Article 323B can be established by Parliament or the State Legislatures, depending on which body has the legislative competence over the subject matter. The statement incorrectly says they can "only be established by State legislature".
(C) This statement is incorrect. Article 323A allows for the establishment of one tribunal for the Union (CAT) and a separate administrative tribunal for each State or for two or more States. It also provides for a hierarchy of tribunals, which is contrary to the second part of the statement.
(D) This statement is incorrect and factually absurd. No tribunal has the power to hear appeals from the Supreme Court. The original intent was to allow direct appeals from tribunals to the Supreme Court (bypassing the High Court), but this was struck down in the L. Chandra Kumar case.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The only correct statement that accurately reflects the distinction is (A).

Answer 8

The question asks us to pick the statement that correctly captures how Article 323A differs from Article 323B in scope and application. Let's go through each option and test it against what these two articles actually say.

1. Article 323A exclusively deals with administrative tribunals for public service matters, while Article 323B deals with the tribunals for a wider range of subjects including taxation and land reforms: Article 323A is narrowly drafted. It allows Parliament to set up tribunals only for disputes about recruitment and service conditions of persons in public service. Article 323B, on the other hand, lists out a long set of subjects, including taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, and elections, among others. This statement matches the actual text and scope of both articles.
2. While tribunals under Article 323A can be established only by Parliament, tribunals under Article 323B can only be established by State legislature: This gets it half right and half wrong. Article 323A tribunals are indeed set up only by Parliament, but Article 323B tribunals can be set up by either Parliament or a State legislature, whichever one has the legislative competence over that subject. Restricting Article 323B to State legislatures alone is incorrect.
3. Under Article 323A, only one tribunal for centre and no tribunal for state may be established. As far as Article 323B is concerned, there is no hierarchy of tribunals: This is wrong on both counts. Article 323A permits one tribunal for the Union and separate tribunals for individual States or groups of States, so state level tribunals are allowed. It also does not rule out a hierarchy of tribunals under Article 323B.
4. Article 323A grant tribunals the power to hear appeals directly from the Supreme Court, by passing the high court. Under Article 323B there is no such power: No tribunal has ever had the power to hear appeals coming from the Supreme Court, since that reverses the appellate hierarchy and makes no legal sense. If anything, the original scheme tried to let appeals from tribunals skip the High Court and go straight to the Supreme Court, and even that was later disapproved by the courts.

Only the first statement accurately reflects the real difference between the two provisions, since Article 323A is limited to service matters while Article 323B covers a much broader list of subjects.

Therefore, the correct answer is Article 323A exclusively deals with administrative tribunals for public service matters, while Article 323B deals with the tribunals for a wider range of subjects including taxation and land reforms.

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the committee whose recommendations led to the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B into the Constitution.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
(A) Parliamentary Standing Committees analyze various bills and policies but were not the original proponents of these constitutional articles.
(B) The idea of a National Tribunals Commission is a more recent suggestion to standardize the appointment and functioning of tribunals, notably discussed in cases like Madras Bar Association v. Union of India. It was not the body that recommended the original articles.
(C) The Swaran Singh Committee, set up by the Congress party in 1976 during the Emergency, was tasked with recommending amendments to the Constitution. Among its key recommendations were the inclusion of Fundamental Duties and the creation of a separate part for tribunals. These recommendations were incorporated into the Constitution via the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which added Part XIV-A (containing Articles 323A and 323B).
(D) The Law Commission's 272nd Report deals with the assessment of the legal framework related to the film industry. Many other Law Commission reports have dealt with tribunals, but not the 272nd, and none were the basis for the 42nd Amendment.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The insertion of Articles 323A and 323B was based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee.

Answer 10

The question asks which body's recommendation led to the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B into the Constitution. Let's look at what each of the four bodies actually did.

1. Parliamentary Standing Committee: These committees examine specific bills and ministries in detail once a bill is already before Parliament. They did not originate the idea of adding a separate part on tribunals to the Constitution.
2. National Tribunals Commission: This is an idea that has come up in later years, including in judicial discussions on how tribunals should be structured and staffed. It is a proposal for reforming existing tribunals, not the body that recommended creating Articles 323A and 323B in the first place.
3. Swaran Singh Committee: This committee was formed in 1976 to suggest changes to the Constitution. Among its recommendations was the idea of inserting a new part dealing with tribunals, to reduce the pressure of service and other specialised disputes on the regular courts. These suggestions were carried into the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which added Part XIV-A containing Articles 323A and 323B.
4. Law commission of India's 272nd Report: This particular report deals with a different subject altogether, unrelated to the constitutional insertion of tribunal provisions. While the Law Commission has studied tribunals in other reports, this specific one is not the source of Articles 323A and 323B.

Since it was the Swaran Singh Committee whose 1976 recommendations directly led to Part XIV-A being added to the Constitution, that is the body behind Articles 323A and 323B.

Therefore, the correct answer is Swaran Singh Committee.