Delhi High Court: Tribunals to have Jurisdiction in Entrusted Matters before High Courts

Must Read

SC: Under-21 Convicts Can Be Given Less Than Minimum Sentence, Resorts To Probation of Offenders Act

The Supreme Court resorted to the Probation of Offenders Act to sidestep the mandate under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code that mentions a sentence of not less than 7 years to those convicted of armed robbery, to give a chance to two young convicts to reform their lives.

Environment Protection Act Passed at the Instance of Foreign Powers: NHAI in Karnataka HC

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed in a submission that the Environment Protection Act 1986 was passed not only for the protection of the environment by the parliament but also at the instance of foreign powers. This statement was made while referring to a UN conference and got the NHAI into great trouble in the Karnataka High Court.

Delhi High Court To Implement a Hybrid System Through Virtual and Physical Hearing

On Friday the Delhi High Court said that they have initiated steps to implement a mode wherein hearing can be done by virtual as well as physical mode. The Delhi High Court is aiming to implement the Hybrid mode. It stated that when the particular bench is conducting a virtual hearing the lawyer may opt for this mode after giving prior intimation about the same.

Mercy Plea of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case To Be Decided in Four Weeks, TN Governor To Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a decision on the mercy petition of one of the convicts serving a life sentence for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, AG Perarivalan will be taken within four weeks. The petition has been pending with the Governor since December 30, 2015.

Bombay High Court Questions FIR Over Journalist Alleged of Communist Comment on WhatsApp

An FIR lodged against the editor of Marathi newspaper, Rajkumar Chhajed has been questioned by the Bombay High Court. The Maharashtra Police has accused Chhajed of creating a rift between the two communities based on a WhatsApp message.

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition...

Follow us

Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the judgment in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Deo v. Union Public Service Commission. It relied on an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court. It states that one can approach the High Courts when there is a challenge to the parent statute of any Tribunal.

Brief facts of the case

The Petitioner questions the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as DGP, State of Haryana. There is a doubt on the empanelment, as well as the appointment by the UPSC dated 18.02.2019.

The Supreme Court did not entertain his Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It directed the Petitioner to “approach the jurisdictional High Court if so advised.” Hence, he filed this writ petition.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondents object the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They submit that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and stated that IPS is an All India Service. The Petitioner is under the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Court of ‘first instance’ for ‘service matters’ in light of Section 14(1) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (‘the Act’) is the Tribunal.

The respondents relied on the decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 among others.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Counsel for Petitioner states that the petition talks about the liberty granted by the Supreme Court. Thus it is not open to the Respondents to raise any objection to its maintainability.

Existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar in entertaining a petition by a Writ Court. Instead, it is a rule of self-imposed limitation.

Relying on various judgments, it said that, the decision to entertain or not to entertain an action under a writ jurisdiction is a decision to be taken by the High Court on examination of the facts and circumstances.

Court’s Observations

The Court examined Article 14(1) of the Act and noted that Section 14(1)(b)(i) provides for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction in all service matters of All India Service. Section 3(q) of the Act defines ‘Service Matters’. It covers all matters relating to conditions of service and also includes matters about tenure, confirmation, seniority, promotion etc.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 was taken into account. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunals are competent to hear matters entrusted to them. They will act as only Courts of ‘first instance’ in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. However, the Tribunals cannot entertain a challenge to the parent statute, which created it. The Court stated that “Tribunal, which is a creature of an Act, cannot declare that the very Act to be unconstitutional.” It is only in this case that the High Court concerned may be approached.

Also, all decisions of the Tribunal are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the concerned High Court. The High Court exercises its power of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court further observed that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227. The Court, as a result of this, declared that this is a part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. However, the other Courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred on the High Court.

The Court clarified that the Tribunal is not an ‘alternative’, but is the ‘only’ Forum available to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner does not have a choice not to approach the Tribunal for a remedy. The reason is that the Court does not have the discretion to entertain this petition.

Court’s Decision

In the present case, the Supreme Court’s direction to approach the High Court is to be read with the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar.

Given the judgement in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC and Section 14(1) read with Section 3(q) of the Act, the present petition is not maintainable in this Court. Hence, it is dismissed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

SC: Under-21 Convicts Can Be Given Less Than Minimum Sentence, Resorts To Probation of Offenders Act

The Supreme Court resorted to the Probation of Offenders Act to sidestep the mandate under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code that mentions a sentence of not less than 7 years to those convicted of armed robbery, to give a chance to two young convicts to reform their lives.

Environment Protection Act Passed at the Instance of Foreign Powers: NHAI in Karnataka HC

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed in a submission that the Environment Protection Act 1986 was passed not only for the protection of the environment by the parliament but also at the instance of foreign powers. This statement was made while referring to a UN conference and got the NHAI into great trouble in the Karnataka High Court.

Delhi High Court To Implement a Hybrid System Through Virtual and Physical Hearing

On Friday the Delhi High Court said that they have initiated steps to implement a mode wherein hearing can be done by virtual as well as physical mode. The Delhi High Court is aiming to implement the Hybrid mode. It stated that when the particular bench is conducting a virtual hearing the lawyer may opt for this mode after giving prior intimation about the same.

Mercy Plea of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case To Be Decided in Four Weeks, TN Governor To Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a decision on the mercy petition of one of the convicts serving a life sentence for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, AG Perarivalan will be taken within four weeks. The petition has been pending with the Governor since December 30, 2015.

Bombay High Court Questions FIR Over Journalist Alleged of Communist Comment on WhatsApp

An FIR lodged against the editor of Marathi newspaper, Rajkumar Chhajed has been questioned by the Bombay High Court. The Maharashtra Police has accused Chhajed of creating a rift between the two communities based on a WhatsApp message.

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition sought a speedy decision in...

[Delhi Riots] When the IT Ministry Calls Us, We Will Go Says Harish Salve To Delhi High Court

The Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook, Ajit Mohan told the Supreme Court that when the representatives of the company are called by the Information Technology Ministry they will come and record their statements.

Allahabad High Court Seeks Response on Compensation of Cutting Trees From National Highways Authority of India (Nhai) 

The Order had come in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a bunch of law students in Uttar Pradesh. The...

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -