What Is The Judicial Review In Service Matters?

The Supreme Court ruled in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel that a public servant facing wrongful dismissal has statutory remedies of appeal and, if that is not enough, he also has the remedy of “judicial review” if his deprivation is contested. As a result, the Supreme Court properly credited judicial review. The Apex Court defined judicial review as both the Tribunal’s on-the-annual review and review by the Constitutional Judicial Authorities.

Article 323-A Establishing Administrative Tribunals for Service Matters

The Administrative Tribunals were created to settle disputes about hiring, matters about hiring, and terms of service for individuals appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the operations of the Union, any State, any local or other authority under government control, or any corporation or society that the government owns or controls. This was carried out by the provisions of Art. 323-A, which S. 46 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, inserted into the Constitution.

The creation of such Administrative Tribunals to handle only service matters would greatly aid in the prompt resolution of these matters, according to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing the Bill for the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. Members of the armed forces or any paramilitary force, officers or staff of the Supreme Court, any High Court, or courts under its jurisdiction, and individuals appointed to the secretarial staff of either the House of Parliament or any State Legislature are exempt from the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. The Chairman of an Administrative Tribunal is a person who is or was a High Court Judge.

Tribunals Administrative and Judicial Review:

A court process known as judicial review allows a judge to assess whether a public body’s decision or action was lawful. It is an objection to the process used to reach a decision. The question of whether the process’s conclusions were “right” or not is irrelevant as long as the law has been correctly applied and the proper procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute its judgment for what it deems to be the “right” one. This could imply that provided it is done so in a legal manner, the public body will be permitted to make the same choice once more.

Thus, judicial review is an essential tool for maintaining the rule of law and keeping public authorities within appropriate bounds. The court under review is only concerned with whether the act or order under review should be allowed to stand, rather than replacing the decision of some other body with its own.

Judicial review is therefore a crucial instrument for upholding the rule of law and limiting the authority of public authorities. The court reviewing the matter is not interested in superseding the decision of any other body; rather, it is only interested in determining whether the act or order under review should be allowed to stand.

Sampath Kumar’s Case

Many times, the orders, judgments, and decisions rendered by different administrative tribunals and administrative bodies are rendered final by statute. Two things are implied by this statutory finality: It denotes the absence of any provisions for revision, appeal, or referral to a higher tribunal, as well as the prohibition on court jurisdiction over disputes falling under the tribunal’s purview.

However, since the judicial review doctrine is a fundamental component of the Constitution, it cannot be eliminated, not even by a constitutional amendment. The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 faced challenges to its validity because it aimed to exclude the judicial review doctrine.

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 and the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 about service matters were initially excluded by the Act. This was contested before the Supreme Court in the Union of India v. S.P. Sampath Kumar case. In this instance, the Supreme Court ordered the implementation of specific measures to guarantee that the Administrative Tribunals operated by sound constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court has the authority to review tribunal decisions under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, the High Court’s jurisdictional exclusion does not completely preclude judicial review, as significant cases involving grave injustice may be brought before the Supreme Court for correction. As a result, the Administrative Tribunals were able to effectively replace the High Courts.

Lead India provides various legal services, including free legal advice and internet information. We provide a facility in which you can talk to a lawyer and ask legal questions regarding the law here. Lead India’s lawyers can assist you with any legal issues. In India, Lead India provides free legal assistance online. In addition to receiving free legal advice online, Lead India allows users to pose inquiries to experts for free.