Can HC Exercise Jurisdiction Over A Tribunal Situated Outside Its Territorial Limits? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

In a case relating to whistleblower Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the Supreme Court referred to a larger bench the issue regarding the jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a challenge against an order passed by a Tribunal which is situated outside its territorial limit.The issue arose in an appeal filed by the Union Government against the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court to entertain a petition filed by Sanjiv Chaturvedi challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal's Principal Bench at New Delhi. Chaturvedi's contention was that a part of cause of action had arisen within the State of Uttarakhand and hence the High Court could entertain the challenge as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The Union's argument was that only the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the seat of the Tribunal can entertain the challenge.A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that the issue was quite important concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The bench also noted that the issue affects a large number of employees and is of public importance.The Bench asked the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India at the earliest so that the issued can be resolved as soon as possible. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India to argue that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had held that “all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.” Thereafter, he resorted to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay. He averred that in the said judgment it was held that the the Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an order passed by the CAT Principal Bench at New Delhi.Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing on behalf of Chaturvedi, submitted that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, any High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 provided a part cause of action has arisen in its jurisdiction irrespective of whether the authority or government which passed the order is not located within the jurisdiction of the said High Court. He argued that the decision in L. Chandra Kumar may not be interpreted in a manner so as to restrict the jurisdiction of other High Courts under Article 226(2) as the same would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It was urged that the observation in L. Chandra Kumar that all decisions of tribunals would be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal concerned falls, is not an exclusion of the jurisdiction of the other high courts which may have jurisdiction, particularly, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. He further averred that the judgment in Alapan Bandhyopadhyay may need to be reconsidered on the present issue. Mr. Divan also referred to the historical background of Article 226 and the subsequent development including statement of objects and reasons to the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 and the remarks of the then Law Minister.A Division Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted -“Regard being had to the important issue raised by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the submissions made by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and having gone through the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) and that the issue involved is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts and the effect of introduction of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and the statement of the Law Minister while introducing Article 226(2) of the Constitution referred to hereinabove and that the issue involved affects a large number of employees and is of public importance, we think it appropriate that the matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court to decide a challenge to an order passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi should be considered by a Larger Bench.”BackgroundChaturvedi filed an application before the Nainital Circuit Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the existing system of 360 degree appraisal in empanelment of officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above in the Central Government. He also sought directions to restrain the Government from filling up the posts of Joint Secretary and above through the contract system in future. The Union Government filed an application seeking transfer of the matter to the Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Principal Bench, by order dated 04.12.2020, allowed the transfer after noting...

Can HC Exercise Jurisdiction Over A Tribunal Situated Outside Its Territorial Limits? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Can HC Exercise Jurisdiction Over A Tribunal Situated Outside Its Territorial Limits? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers