Dinkar Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The petitioners, three Advocates, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of provisions in ten statutes — including Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 38 of the Advocates Act 1961, Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, and allied provisions — which provide for direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court against orders of apex adjudicatory tribunals constituted under those enactments. The petitioners contended that these provisions violate the basic structure of the Constitution by overriding the power of judicial review conferred on High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and alternatively sought that the word 'Supreme Court' in those provisions be read as 'High Court'.

The Delhi High Court held that in the decade since the petition was filed in 2014, the issues raised had been conclusively and authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments. It was firmly established that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be bypassed by the legislature by merely providing for a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court against tribunal orders, and that such jurisdiction remains intact and unaffected notwithstanding such provisions. The Court found that each of the impugned provisions had been separately examined and upheld as intra vires the Constitution by binding precedents of the Supreme Court, which also clarified that High Court writ jurisdiction is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted.

In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on each of the impugned provisions, the Delhi High Court held that no challenge to their constitutional validity survived for consideration and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.

Catchwords: Public Interest Litigation · judicial review · basic structure doctrine · direct statutory appeal to Supreme Court · High Court jurisdiction · Articles 226 and 227 · tribunals · constitutional validity · PIL · ouster of jurisdiction