The Delhi High Court affirmed High Courts’ authority over tribunal decisions, ruling on a PIL challenging statutes bypassing High Courts and sending appeals directly to the Supreme Court.
The Delhi High Court has recently delivered a pivotal judgment affirming the enduring writ jurisdiction of High Courts against decisions made by various tribunals. In a case marked by significant legal scrutiny, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora addressed a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the constitutional validity of several statutes. These statutes notably diverted appeals directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.
Also Read- Delhi High Court Challenges Central Government’s Ban On 23 ‘Ferocious’ Dog Breeds (lawchakra.in)
The petition, filed by Dinkar Kumar and others against the Union of India, targeted specific sections within major acts, including the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Advocates Act, 1961, among others. These provisions mandated direct statutory appeals to the Supreme Court from the apex adjudicatory fora established under the respective legislations, raising concerns over the suppression of the High Courts’ powers of judicial review as enshrined in Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Addressing the core of the petitioners’ arguments, the High Court clarified,
“We may however, reiterate that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the statutory tribunals, however, remains unaffected by the aforesaid provisions and there is no ouster, as authoritatively held and clarified in each of the aforesaid judgments.”
In rejecting the petitioners’ plea for reinterpretation, the Court elucidated,
“The alternative submissions of the Petitioners seeking a declaration of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution from orders of the Tribunal or a right to maintain an appeal before the High Court against the orders of the Tribunal are inconsistent and belies the Petitioner’s understanding of the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in judicial review.”
The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court’s stance in the notable case of Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., highlighting the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of anomalies caused by provisions for direct statutory appeals but reaffirming the unchanged writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
Also Read- #BREAKING AAP Policy | Salary For Imams | Delhi High Court Issued Notice To Gov. (lawchakra.in)
The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the PIL not only reinforces the architectural integrity of India’s judicial review system but also reaffirms the High Court’s pivotal role within it. By addressing each contested act specifically, the Court dispelled fears over the erosion of the High Courts’ authority and confirmed their capacity to exercise judicial oversight over tribunal decisions.
In conclusion, while the PIL raised important questions regarding the balance of power between different judicial bodies, the Delhi High Court’s ruling has underscored the fundamental principles underpinning India’s legal framework. Advocates Praveen Agarwal, RR Srish, Awanish Kumar, Sanjay K Singh, and Sanjay K Jha represented the petitioners, while Central Government Standing Counsel Vikram Jetly and Advocate Shreya Jetly stood for the Union of India, culminating in a judgment that reaffirms the checks and balances essential to the nation’s judicial integrity.
The PIL was filed challenging these Sections.
- Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
- Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961;
- Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997;
- Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992;
- Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969;
- Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002;
- Section 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007;
- Section 22 of the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010;
- Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003; and,
- Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Also Read- Arvind Kejriwal & ED Summons | “Show Evidence Against CM”: Delhi High Court To ED (lawchakra.in)
