📖 S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124

Facts: The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, enacted under Article 323A, established the Central Administrative Tribunal and by section 28 excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters. The Act was challenged on the ground that it destroyed judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution.

Held: The Court upheld the Act, subject to modifications. Exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction is permissible only if the tribunal is an effective institutional mechanism or authority for judicial review, that is, a real substitute for the High Court rather than a replacement in name. The tribunal must therefore be manned by persons of judicial competence and experience, and its members must enjoy security of tenure and independence comparable to that of the judges whose jurisdiction they replace. The Court required changes in the provisions on appointment and removal of the Chairman and Members, including a high-powered selection committee, and upheld the Act as so modified.

Ratio: A tribunal may displace a court only if it is an effective substitute in composition, competence and independence. Independence is a constitutional condition of tribunalisation.

📖 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261

Facts: A seven-Judge Bench considered the validity of clause 2(d) of Article 323A, clause 3(d) of Article 323B and section 28 of the 1985 Act, all of which excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts, leaving only the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136.

Held: The Court struck down the exclusionary clauses and section 28. The power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and in the Supreme Court under Article 32, is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and part of its basic structure, and cannot be ousted even by constitutional amendment. Tribunals may function as courts of first instance in their fields, so a litigant must approach the tribunal and cannot go directly to the High Court; but every decision of a tribunal is subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls, and no direct appeal lies to the Supreme Court bypassing the High Court. Tribunals may decide the validity of subordinate legislation but not of their parent statute. The Court recommended that a single nodal ministry, preferably Law, administer tribunals rather than the departments that litigate before them.

Ratio: Judicial review by the High Courts is part of the basic structure and survives tribunalisation. Tribunals supplement the High Courts; they do not supplant them.

📖 Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, (2010) 11 SCC 1

Facts: Parts IB and IC of the Companies Act, 1956 created the National Company Law Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal and transferred to them the company jurisdiction of the High Courts. The qualifications of members, the presence of civil servants on benches and the mode of appointment were challenged.

Held: The Constitution Bench upheld the competence to create tribunals and transfer jurisdiction, but struck down several provisions for failing to secure independence. Where the jurisdiction of a court is transferred, the tribunal must possess the same independence, security and capacity as the court it replaces; members must have judicial or comparable expertise, and civil servants lacking it cannot discharge judicial functions. Selection must be through a committee in which the judiciary has a decisive voice, tenure must be secure and sufficiently long, and the tribunal must not be administered by the department that litigates before it. A three-year tenure was held too short and directed to be extended to five years.

Ratio: Transfer of judicial functions to a tribunal is permissible only if the tribunal matches the court it replaces in independence, tenure and competence, with the judiciary having a decisive voice in appointments.

📖 Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (Supreme Court, November 2025)

Facts: Sections 3 to 7 of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 reproduced provisions on eligibility, selection, tenure and service conditions that had already been struck down in the 2020 and 2021 decisions, including a four-year tenure with eligibility for reappointment and a minimum age of fifty, without curing the defects the Court had identified.

Held: The Court struck down the core provisions. By re-enacting provisions already declared unconstitutional without addressing the defects, Parliament had attempted a legislative override in the strictest sense, offending constitutional supremacy, the separation of powers and the binding effect of precedent. The provisions equating tribunal members with civil servants, the four-year tenure in place of the directed minimum of five years, the minimum age of fifty, and the arrangements leaving tribunals dependent on litigating ministries for funds and infrastructure were all held invalid. The Court directed the Union to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months as a structural safeguard for independence, transparency and uniformity.

Ratio: A legislature cannot re-enact provisions struck down for unconstitutionality without curing the defect. Independence requires secure tenure, judicially dominated selection and freedom from administrative dependence on the litigating department.

R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1

NCLT and NCLAT: competence upheld, but qualifications, composition and tenure provisions struck down; judiciary must have a decisive voice in selection

Madras Bar Association, (2014) 10 SCC 1

The National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 held unconstitutional: the jurisdiction of the High Courts over substantial questions of law could not be transferred to a tribunal so constituted

Madras Bar Association, (2015) 8 SCC 583

NCLT and NCLAT under the Companies Act, 2013: constitution upheld, but the provisions on qualifications and the selection committee were again found wanting and corrected

Madras Bar Association (2020)

The Tribunal Rules, 2020 modified; a minimum tenure of five years directed, and the creation of a National Tribunals Commission recommended

Madras Bar Association, (2021) 7 SCC 369

Provisions of the 2021 Ordinance struck down: four-year tenure, minimum age of fifty and selection from a panel of two names

Madras Bar Association (November 2025)

Sections 3 to 7 of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 struck down as a legislative override; National Tribunals Commission directed within four months

Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association, (2002) 4 SCC 275

Article 323B is not the only source of power; a tribunal may be created under an ordinary legislative entry for an unlisted subject

J.B. Chopra v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 422

A tribunal substituting for the High Court may decide the constitutional validity of service rules and regulations

Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2019) 6 SCC 1

The Tribunal Rules, 2017 struck down for excessive executive control; excessive delegation in Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 examined; the money bill question referred to a larger Bench

Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423

Certiorari does not lie against judicial orders of civil courts; Article 227 and statutory remedies apply

Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329

The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised sparingly and is never appellate

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477

Certiorari against a tribunal: errors of law apparent on the record are correctable, errors of fact are not

Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398

The supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to reappreciating the evidence before a tribunal

Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1961 SC 1669

An authority deciding a dispute between parties with a duty to act judicially is a tribunal for the purposes of Article 136

Associated Cement Companies v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595

The tests for determining whether a body is a tribunal: the trappings of a court and the exercise of the judicial power of the State

T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 516

The L. Chandra Kumar dispensation applies to the contempt jurisdiction of tribunals as well

⚠ The three phases answer three different questions

Reading the cases as a single stream makes them hard to hold. They are better kept in their phases, because each answers a distinct question. Sampath Kumar answers whether a tribunal may take over a court's jurisdiction, and says yes if it is an effective substitute. L. Chandra Kumar answers how far that replacement may go, and says not so far as to exclude the High Court, because judicial review is part of the basic structure. The Madras Bar Association line answers on what conditions a tribunal may function, and has been working out the requirements of tenure, qualification, selection and administration ever since. The first two questions are settled; the third is not.