Rajnish R Singla
The supplied content explains doctrines of administrative law and statutory interpretation concerning the limits of statutory authorities and tribunals. It states that a creature of a statute cannot question the vires or constitutional validity of the statute under which it functions, and discusses Coram Non Judice, approbate and reprobate, Nemo Contra Factum Suum Venire Potest, ultra vires and estoppel. It relies on K.S. Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras (1966), Alpha Chem v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1992) and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) for propositions concerning the limited jurisdiction of statutory tribunals and the constitutional review powers of High Courts and the Supreme Court. The content further identifies Article 226 and Article 32 as constitutional bases for judicial review and refers to Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India (2016) concerning Article 304(a). It also explains Dura Lex, Sed Lex and uses the Nirbhaya case, Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1, to illustrate the relationship between law, factual determination and the statutory process.
- A Creature of the Statute can not question the Statute.
- Coram Non Judice
- Principle of Competence and Jurisdiction
- Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate (Election)
- Nemo Contra Factum Suum Venire Potest* (No one can go against their own act):
- Doctrine of Ultra Vires:
- Estoppel:
- Judicial Decisions on Statutory Tribunal Jurisdiction
- KS Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras (1966)
- Alpha Chem v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1992)
- Significance
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
- The Core Ratio (The Rule):
- Constitutional Powers are Reserved for High Courts and the Supreme Court.
- Dura Lex, Sed Lex
- Remember
- Nirbhaya Case
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1.
- The Verdict –
A Creature of the Statute can not question the Statute.
A creature of the statute cannot challenge the vires of the statute under which it functions.
Coram Non Judice
Principle of Competence and Jurisdiction
A body created by a specific law possesses only the powers explicitly or implicitly granted to it by that law. It has no inherent or plenary judicial power.
Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate (Election)
A person cannot “blow hot and cold” at the same time. You cannot accept the benefits of a document, transaction, or instrument while simultaneously attacking its validity or rejecting its burdens.
Nemo Contra Factum Suum Venire Potest* (No one can go against their own act):
An authority cannot act under the powers given by a specific law while simultaneously arguing that the very same law is invalid or unconstitutional.
Doctrine of Ultra Vires:
Statutory bodies (like tribunals, tax authorities, or regulatory boards) only possess the specific jurisdiction carved out for them by the legislature. Because the power to declare a law unconstitutional belongs strictly to the constitutional courts (such as the High Courts or the Supreme Court), a statutory body attempting to strike down its own parent Act would be acting ultra vires (beyond its powers).
Estoppel:
An entity cannot “approbate and reprobate” (accept and reject the same instrument). A body corporate or tribunal cannot accept its legal existence from a statute and then reject the validity of that statute.
Judicial Decisions on Statutory Tribunal Jurisdiction
KS Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras (1966)
The Ruling – The Supreme Court explicitly held that an authority or tribunal constituted under an Act cannot entertain a plea that a provision of that Act is ultra vires (beyond legal power) or unconstitutional.
Alpha Chem v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1992)
The Ruling – The apex court noted that a statutory tribunal is not a court of general jurisdiction. It is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction tasked only with administering the law as written. It has no authority to test whether the legislature had the competence to pass that law.
Significance
If a taxpayer wants to challenge a tax provision as unconstitutional, they must do so before a High Court or the Supreme Court, not before the departmental tax authorities.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
While this celebrated 7 Judge Constitution Bench judgment is universally famous for declaring judicial review part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution, it established the definitive rule on what an administrative or statutory tribunal can and cannot do regarding constitutional validity.
The Core Ratio (The Rule):
The Supreme Court ruled that while statutory tribunals (like the Central Administrative Tribunal, Tax Tribunals, etc.) can test the validity of subordinate legislations (like rules, regulations, and notifications) against the parent Act, they cannot strike down or question the validity of their own parent Act.
The Court held that tribunals, being pure creatures of the statute, cannot bite the hand that feeds them. Only constitutional courts—the High Courts (under Article 226) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32)—have the jurisdiction to test the constitutionality of a parent Parliamentary or State Act.
The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) / Tribunal is an administrative/departmental appellate authority created by a specific tax law (such as the State GST Act or Value Added Tax Act).
Under Indian jurisprudence, a statutory authority cannot adjudicate upon the constitutional validity or ultra vires nature of the very Act, it is appointed to administer. It must accept the law as enacted by the legislature.
Constitutional Powers are Reserved for High Courts and the Supreme Court.
The power to strike down a state law, rule, or notification on the grounds that it violates Article 304(a) (by being discriminatory against goods from other states) is an exclusive power of Judicial Review. Under the Constitution of India, this power rests solely with the High Courts (under Article 226) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32).
The landmark ruling is Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India (2016), delivered by a historic 9 Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India.
Dura Lex, Sed Lex
Which translates directly to “the law is harsh, but it is the law”.
It means that binding legal rules must be followed and enforced strictly, even if the outcome feels severe, tough, or unfair in a specific case.
Remember
The phrase “Justice is abstract, Law is a fact” – means that the law is a written, concrete set of rules, while justice is a shifting moral ideal.
Following the strict rules of the law does not always lead to a fair or moral outcome.
Nirbhaya Case
Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1.
The Nirbhaya case refers to the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23 year old physiotherapy student, Jyoti Singh (widely called “Nirbhaya”, meaning “the fearless one”), in New Delhi on December 16, 2012.
Nirbhaya Case, is one of the most significant and heavily documented criminal cases in India’s legal history. It perfectly exemplifies the previous discussion regarding how “law is fact” – where justice required a long, complex, and rigid process of establishing factual evidence and exhausting statutory appeals before the final sentence could legally be carried out.
Under the law at the time of the 2012 Delhi gang rape, the minor accused was legally classified as a juvenile because he was under 18 years old. He was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board and given the maximum reformative sentence of three years, sparking widespread public outrage and demands for harsher trial rules.
The Verdict –
The juvenile served three years in a reform home and was released in December 2015, as courts ruled they had no legallegal power to extend his detention under the older statute.
Out of other 5 accused , one committed suicide in jail during the trial and four were awarded death sentence by the court.
