S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India

• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 established CAT under Art.323A
• Excluded HC jurisdiction (Art.226) over service matters of Central Government employees
• Challenge: exclusion of HC jurisdiction violates basic structure (judicial review)
• Counter: Art.323A expressly authorizes such exclusion; CAT is adequate substitute

1. Whether establishment of CAT excluding HC jurisdiction over service matters is constitutionally valid?

• CAT is constitutionally valid substitute for HC in service matters
• Art.323A expressly empowers Parliament to exclude HC jurisdiction once tribunal is established
• BUT: CAT must be independent, competent, and follow judicial approach; otherwise it is not an adequate substitute
• Requirements for validity: (a) members must have security of tenure; (b) fair procedure (natural justice); (c) reasoned decisions; (d) judicial members necessary for credibility
• If these conditions not met, exclusion of HC jurisdiction would violate basic structure

Parliament can create alternative institutional mechanisms for dispute resolution (tribunals) that replace HC jurisdiction, provided the alternative is equally effective. The substitute must maintain: independence from executive, competence of members, fair procedure, and reasoned adjudication. An inadequate substitute cannot constitutionally exclude HC jurisdiction. Note: This position was significantly qualified by L. Chandra Kumar (1997), which held that HC jurisdiction under Art.226 can NEVER be fully excluded; tribunals supplement but do not substitute for constitutional courts.