Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) by three police officers working as Inspectors in the Madhya Pradesh Police Department. They challenged the constitution of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) as well as the appointments of its Vice-Chairman and Members, alleging that the Government had failed to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India. The petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto and a declaration that the constitution of the SAT was null and void. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointments of the Vice-Chairman and Members by judgment dated 29.7.1993, holding that the appointments had not been made through a High Powered Selection Committee as directed and were arbitrary, biased, and violative of the Government of India's order dated 15.4.1991. Aggrieved, the affected appointees, the Union of India, and an intervenor bar association filed appeals before the Supreme Court. A three-judge bench referred the matters to a Constitution Bench on 3.5.1994, noting that the cases raised important questions regarding the interpretation of Section 6 as amended by Act 51 of 1987 and the validity of appointments made thereunder. The main legal issue was whether the mode of selection and appointment prescribed by the 1987 amendment was valid. The Court recalled that in S.P. Sampath Kumar, the Supreme Court had held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and that any alternative institutional mechanism must be equally efficacious and independent. The Court had directed that for selection of Vice-Chairman and Members who are not sitting or retired High Court judges, a High Powered Selection Committee chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India should be constituted. The Court had also emphasized that the Tribunal must be a real substitute for the High Court. The 1987 amendment to Section 6 was enacted to address these concerns. The appellants argued that the appointments were made in accordance with the amended provision and after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, thereby ensuring independence. The original petitioners contended that the amendment did not fully comply with the directions and that the actual selection process was arbitrary and biased. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional framework and held that the amended Section 6, which provided for consultation with the Chief Justice of India for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members, was a valid legislative response that ensured the independence of the Tribunal. The Court concluded that a separate High Powered Selection Committee was not mandatory after the 1987 amendment; consultation with the Chief Justice of India satisfied the constitutional requirement. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and upheld the appointments. The appeals were allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Basic Structure Doctrine - Constitution of India, Articles 323A, 226, 227 - The exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 by a law under Article 323A is constitutionally valid only if an equally efficacious alternative institutional mechanism is set up; the Administrative Tribunals must be a real substitute for the High Court in form and content. Held that the Tribunal must be equally independent and capable of judicial review. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Administrative Law - Tribunals - Independence of Tribunal Members - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 6 - Appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members must ensure independence from executive pressure; for non-judicial members (other than sitting/retired High Court judges), selection should be by a High Powered Selection Committee with a sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India as Chairman. Held that mere approval by the Chief Justice of India on administrative side may not suffice unless the selection process is independent. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Administrative Law - Appointments - Amendment of Section 6 - Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1987 (Act 51 of 1987), Section 6 - The 1987 amendment to Section 6 was made purportedly to cure defects in appointment procedure; High Court held it not in conformity with this Court's directions and quashed appointments as arbitrary and biased. Held that the validity of appointments depends on whether the statutory procedure ensures independence of the Tribunal. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Writ Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto - Locus Standi - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Preliminary objections regarding bar of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, propriety of public interest litigation by disgruntled litigants, and scope of quo warranto were raised but not pressed before the Supreme Court. Held that these objections were not considered on merits. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mode of selection and appointment of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the State Administrative Tribunal as prescribed by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1987 is valid; whether appointments made after approval by the Chief Justice of India but without a High Powered Selection Committee comply with the Constitution; whether the High Court correctly quashed the appointments.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 29.7.1993, and upheld the validity of the appointments of the Vice-Chairman and Members of the State Administrative Tribunal made under the amended Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Law Points
- Judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution
- a law under Article 323A excluding High Court jurisdiction is valid only if an equally efficacious alternative mechanism is established
- Administrative Tribunals must be a real substitute for the High Court in form and content
- appointment of Chairman
- Vice-Chairman and Members must ensure independence from executive pressure
- for non-judicial members selection should be by a high powered committee with a sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India
- consultation with Chief Justice of India under amended Section 6 ensures independence.
