Case Note & Summary
The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of Clause (5) of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India, which was introduced by the Constitution (Thirty-Second Amendment) Act, 1973. The petitioners, P. Sambamurthy and others, contended that the clause allowed the State Government to modify or annul orders of the Administrative Tribunal, which undermined the principles of justice and the rule of law. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, focused on the implications of this clause, particularly the Proviso that conferred excessive power on the State Government, which could override the Tribunal's decisions. The Court reasoned that such a provision was shocking and subversive of justice, as it allowed a party to litigation to negate the Tribunal's authority. The Court noted that the power had been misused by the State Government in numerous cases, further eroding the Tribunal's effectiveness. The judgment emphasized that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated without affecting its basic structure. The Court concluded that the Proviso to Clause (5) was unconstitutional and directed the Government of India to amend the Presidential Order to align with the ruling. The Court quashed all orders made by the State Government under this Proviso, thereby reinforcing the independence of the Administrative Tribunal and the rule of law.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Clause (5) of Article 371-D - Unconstitutionality - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 371-D - The Supreme Court held that Clause (5) along with its Proviso is unconstitutional as it allows the State Government to modify or annul orders of the Administrative Tribunal, undermining the rule of law and principles of justice. This provision was found to be violative of the basic structure doctrine as it rendered the Administrative Tribunal less effective than the High Court (Paras 890-891).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Clause (5) of Article 371-D of the Constitution is unconstitutional for violating the basic structure doctrine.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court declared Clause (5) of Article 371-D along with its Proviso unconstitutional and void. The Court directed the Government of India to amend the Presidential Order to conform with the ruling and quashed all orders made by the State Government under the Proviso.
Law Points
- Judicial review
- Basic structure doctrine
- Administrative Tribunal
- Constitutional validity
- Amending power of Parliament
