Report No. 162

Section II: Proposals to Make The Central/State Administrative Tribunal a Real Substitute to The High Court for The Purposes of Satisfying The Requirements of Judicial Review:

A Basic Feature of The Constitution

14. Do you think that if the status of the present Central/State Administrative Tribunal is raised to that of a High Court in all respects, including composition service conditions eligibility criteria and disposal of cases hereinafter suggested and by also providing

(i) that these Tribunals are manned only by judicial members who are equally competent as that of a High Court Judge;

(ii) the role of Administrative Member is limited to that of an assessor;

(iii) the power of making decision would rest only with the Judicial Member, whether sitting in a Single Member Bench or in a Division Bench as per the allocation of the cases?

15. If so, whether the proposed constitution of such a Central or State Administrative Tribunal does become a real substitute to the High Court satisfying the requirements of basic feature of the Constitution, as laid down in Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 and Minerva Mill Ltd. v. Union of India, ( 1980) 3 SCC 625.

16. If the answer of the above questions is in affirmative, whether the exclusion of jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is valid and justifiable and the requirements of judicial review, a basic feature of- the Constitution remain unaffected?