Question

Which is not an implication of Finality clause :

• A. No writ lies against the decision of the statutory authority.
• B. Statutory finality and civil courts are barred from exercising jurisdiction
• C. No appeal lies against the decision of the statutory authority
• D. Constitutional remedies could be invoked

Hint:

Any statutory clause attempting to completely exclude the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or High Courts is unconstitutional and void *ab initio*.
Judicial review under the Indian Constitution is an indestructible part of its basic structure.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks us to identify which of the listed options is not a valid legal implication of a "finality clause" in a statute.

Step 2: Key Legal Principles and Approach:
A finality clause is a statutory provision which states that the decision of a particular administrative authority or tribunal "shall be final" or "shall not be called into question in any court."
We must analyze how such clauses interact with the jurisdiction of civil courts, statutory appeals, and constitutional writ remedies.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:

• Purpose of Finality Clauses: The primary purpose of a finality clause is to bring litigation to an end by barring further statutory appeals against the decision of the designated authority.

• Hence, "No appeal lies against the decision" (Option C) is a direct and valid implication of such a clause.

• Bar on Civil Courts: Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a finality clause, when combined with an adequate alternative remedy, generally operates to exclude or bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts over that matter.

• Hence, "Statutory finality and civil courts are barred from exercising jurisdiction" (Option B) is a valid implication.

• Survival of Constitutional Remedies: In India, the power of judicial review is a part of the "basic structure" of the Constitution, as established in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

• Therefore, no ordinary act of Parliament or State Legislature can take away or restrict the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, or of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136.

• Even in the presence of a strict finality clause, constitutional remedies can always be invoked (Option D).

• The Incorrect Implication: Since constitutional writ jurisdiction is absolute and cannot be excluded by ordinary statutes, the statement "No writ lies against the decision of the statutory authority" (Option A) is legally incorrect and is not an implication of a finality clause.

• Therefore, Option (A) is the correct choice.

Step 4: Final Answer:
A finality clause cannot block constitutional writ remedies under Articles 32 or 226, making Option (A) the correct answer.