"Can a statute that ousts the jurisdiction of constitutional courts survive the Basic Structure doctrine?" Illustrate with recent examples.

Judicial review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the Constitution's basic structure [1]. A statute that fully shuts out these courts therefore rarely survives. A law that only channels or narrows judicial review usually does.

Why total ouster fails

• L. Chandra Kumar (1997): A seven-judge Bench held that the judicial review power of Articles 226 and 32 cannot be excluded. Clauses that barred High Court review of tribunal orders were struck down [1].
• Kihoto Hollohan (1992): Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule barred all courts from disqualification cases and was declared invalid [2].
• Principle: Parliament's ordinary law-making power cannot do what even a constitutional amendment cannot do.

When ouster-type clauses survive

• Finality clauses read down: The Court upheld Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, which makes the Speaker's decision "final". It treated the Speaker as a tribunal whose decisions courts can still review [2].
• Supplementary forums: Tribunals are valid if they add to the High Courts and do not replace them [1].
• Procedural filters: A sanction requirement before prosecution limits access to courts without removing it.

Recent illustrations

• Madras Bar Association (Nov 2025): The Court struck down parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. They re-enacted provisions it had already invalidated, which amounted to "legislative overruling" that weakened the independence of tribunals [3].
• Section 16, CEC & Other ECs Act, 2023: It bars civil and criminal proceedings against the CEC and ECs. Petitioners say it "bars jurisdiction of Constitutional courts" and covers even corruption and forgery. The SC issued notice in Nov 2026 [4].
• The clause was not in the Bill as introduced. It was added later through a Rajya Sabha amendment [5][6].
• The government picks the CEC and ECs, holding 2 of 3 seats on the selection panel. This makes the clause more sensitive under Anoop Baranwal's "perception test" [7].
• Likely outcome: reading down. The protection would cover good-faith official acts but not personal crimes.

Total bar on courts      → struck down  (Para 7; Chandra Kumar)
Finality / filter clause → read down    (Para 6; sanction model)

Fig: How courts treat ouster clauses

In short, a statute can limit how and when courts step in, but not whether they can. Parliament should narrow such clauses: protect good-faith acts and use sanction filters instead of total bars. This would keep both institutional independence and accountability, in line with the rule of law at the heart of the basic structure.