Territorial Jurisdiction Of High Court Under Article 226(2) Of Constitution [Explainer]

This piece intends to explore the law regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to issue writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.Article 226 Before Its Amendment Firstly, the legislative history of Article 226 has to be examined. It originally read thus:226. (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any other purpose.(2) The power conferred on a High Court by Clause (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.Khajoor Singh Judgment And AmendmentInterpreting this Article 226, as it stood then, the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs The Union Of India AIR 1961 SC 532, held that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to issue writ undesr Article 226, namely, (i) the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and (ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be ``within those territories'` which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories.The Court, in Khajoor Singh further held that the place where the cause of action arose had no relevance for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. This ruling made the Parliament to amend Article 226(2) which reads as follows (15th Amendment to the Constitution introduced Clause (1-A) to Article 226 which was subsequently renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution 42nd Amendment): "226(2): The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."Delhi HC's Illustration Of Scope Of Amended Article 226In Jayaswals Neco Limited vs Union Of India, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed for Delhi High Court has illustrated the effect of this amendment by giving a simple illustration:The judge further explains:An explanation of the above table is necessary. For the purpose of demonstrating the territorial jurisdiction of two High Courts in State 'A' and State 'B', there are four possible situations which have been set out in the table above. At S.No. 1, the person, authority or government to whom the writ is to be issued is located in State 'A'. The cause of action has also arisen in whole or in part in State 'A'. Therefore, it is the High Court of State 'A' alone which has jurisdiction both under Article 226 (1) as well as under Article 226 (2). In the case of S.No.2, the person, authority or government is located in State 'A', but the cause of action has arisen (in whole or in part) in State 'B', the territorial jurisdiction for the filing of a writ petition would lie both with the High Court of State 'A' and of State 'B'. The High Court of State 'A' would have jurisdiction by virtue of Article 226 (1) inasmuch as the location of the person, authority or government to whom the writ is to be issued is within that State. The High Court of State 'B' would have jurisdiction because, although the location of the person, authority or government is in State 'A', the cause of action (in whole or in part) has arisen in State 'B'. The next case is given under S.No.3. Here the location of the person, authority or government is in State 'B', but the cause of action has arisen in State 'A'. In such a situation, both the High Courts of State 'A' and 'B' would have jurisdiction. But the High Court of State 'A' would have jurisdiction under Article 226 (2) on account of cause of action and the High Court of State 'B' would have jurisdiction by virtue of Article 226 (1) on account of location. Lastly, at S.No.4 is a case which is the inverse of the situation in S.No.1, both the location and the cause of action arise in State 'B'. Therefore, it would be the High Court of State 'B' alone which would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition both under Article 226 (1) and 226 (2).. This clarifies the position with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court in respect of a writ petition.The judge also referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment)...

Territorial Jurisdiction Of High Court Under Article 226(2) Of Constitution [Explainer]

Ashok Kini

Tags