Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 145
Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., Dipankar Datta, J.
Can a High Court that serves as a common court for multiple states transfer a civil case from one state to another, or is this power exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court addressed this novel legal question in the case of Shah Newaz Khan & Ors. vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., clarifying the extent of a common High Court’s power to transfer cases across state lines. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Dipankar Datta, with Justice Datta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The appellants had filed a suit in the court of the District Judge at Dimapur, Nagaland, seeking a declaration of their rights, title, and interest, as well as a perpetual injunction and damages. Due to what they described as hostile circumstances, they faced difficulties in prosecuting the case, leading to its dismissal and restoration on three separate occasions. Consequently, they filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the Gauhati High Court, requesting the transfer of the suit to the court of the District Judge at Guwahati, Assam. The Gauhati High Court, which serves as the common High Court for the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh, rejected this application on 10th December 2015, citing a previous decision that relied on a Supreme Court ruling.
The appellants, as a precautionary measure, also filed an application before the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the CPC, seeking the same relief that was denied by the High Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007 | Appellants filed a suit in the District Judge court at Dimapur, Nagaland. |
| Multiple Occasions | Suit dismissed and restored three times due to difficulties in prosecution. |
| Prior to 10th December 2015 | Appellants moved an application under Section 24 of CPC before the Gauhati High Court for transfer of the suit. |
| 10th December 2015 | Gauhati High Court rejected the transfer application. |
| After 10th December 2015 | Appellants filed an application before the Supreme Court under Section 25 of CPC. |
| 28th February 2023 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Gauhati High Court rejected the appellants’ application for transfer under Section 24 of the CPC, following its earlier decision in Pomi Sengupta vs. Biswajit Sengupta, which in turn relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree. The High Court’s decision was based on the understanding that it lacked the power to transfer a case from a court in one state to a court in another state, even if both courts were under its jurisdiction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal provisions at the center of the dispute are Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), along with Articles 214, 231, 227, 235, and 228 of the Constitution of India.
✓ Section 24 of the CPC outlines the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits by the High Court or the District Court. It allows these courts to transfer cases pending before them to any subordinate court, or to withdraw cases from subordinate courts and either try them or transfer them to another subordinate court.
✓ Section 25 of the CPC grants the Supreme Court the power to transfer suits, appeals, or other proceedings from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court in any other State.
✓ Article 214 of the Constitution of India mandates that there shall be a High Court for each State.
✓ Article 231 of the Constitution of India provides for the establishment of a common High Court for two or more States.
✓ Article 227 of the Constitution of India recognizes the power of superintendence of every High Court over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
✓ Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests the control over all District Courts and courts subordinate thereto in the High Court.
✓ Article 228 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to withdraw a case from a subordinate court if it involves a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
The interplay between these provisions determines the extent of the High Court’s power to transfer cases between states under its jurisdiction, particularly when it is a common High Court.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments
- The appellants argued that Article 231 of the Constitution allows for a common High Court for two or more States.
- They contended that Section 24 of the CPC empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings pending before it to any court subordinate to it, including courts in different states within its jurisdiction.
- They argued that the emphasis of Section 24 is on the expression “court subordinate to it,” and since both the transferor and transferee courts are subordinate to the Gauhati High Court, the High Court has the power to direct inter-state transfer of proceedings.
- They submitted that Section 25 of the CPC applies only to inter-state transfers between states with different High Courts, whereas Section 24 applies to inter-state transfers within the jurisdiction of a common High Court.
- They relied on the principle of statutory interpretation that a construction that avoids hardship and inconvenience should be preferred.
- They cited the Gauhati High Court’s decision in Megha Jain vs. Kartik Jain, which overruled Pomi Sengupta, as well as decisions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chalasani Deepthi vs. Chalasani Krishna Chaitanya and the Bombay High Court in Irene Blanch Khera vs. Glenn John Vijay.
Respondents’ Arguments (State of Nagaland)
- The respondents argued that Section 25 of the CPC is the only provision that allows for the transfer of a case from a Civil Court in one State to a Civil Court in another State.
- They contended that the power of the High Court under Section 24 of the CPC is limited to intra-state transfers and does not extend to inter-state transfers.
- They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree to support the interpretation that Section 25 is the only provision for inter-state transfers.
- They referred to the report of the Joint Committee of the Lok Sabha, which discussed the conflict between Sections 24 and 25 concerning the North-Eastern States.
Respondents’ Arguments (Private Respondents)
- The private respondents argued that the power to effect inter-state transfer of any suit, appeal, or other proceeding is exclusively provided in Section 25 of the CPC, to be exercised only by the Supreme Court.
- They contended that the reliance on Durgesh Sharma by the appellants is misplaced, and the relevant observations were obiter dicta.
- They argued that the decision in Megha Jain incorrectly interprets Section 24 of the CPC and that Sections 22 to 24 and Section 25 are two different codes within the CPC with no overlap.
- They further argued that the power under Section 24 is available even to a District Court, making it clear that it is a continuation of Sections 22 and 23 only.
- They contended that the legislative intent is clear that only under Section 25 of the CPC can a direction be made to transfer a suit from a Civil Court in one State to a Civil Court in another State, and that power is exclusively with the Supreme Court.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (State of Nagaland) | Sub-Submissions (Private Respondents) |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Court’s Power to Transfer |
✓ Article 231 allows common High Court. ✓ Section 24 CPC empowers inter-state transfer within its jurisdiction. ✓ Emphasis on “court subordinate to it.” ✓ Section 25 applies only to different High Courts. |
✓ Section 25 is the only provision for inter-state transfers. ✓ Section 24 limited to intra-state transfers. ✓ Relied on Durgesh Sharma. ✓ Referred to Lok Sabha Joint Committee report. |
✓ Section 25 exclusively for Supreme Court. ✓ Durgesh Sharma observations were obiter dicta. ✓ Megha Jain incorrectly interprets Section 24. ✓ Sections 22-24 and Section 25 are distinct. ✓ Legislative intent for Supreme Court’s exclusive power. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Is the Supreme Court the sole repository of power in terms of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct transfer of a suit, appeal, or other proceeding from a Civil Court in one State to a Civil Court in another State? Or, is it open for a High Court, if it is the common High Court for two or more States, to entertain an application for transfer under Section 24 of the CPC and transfer a suit, appeal, or other proceeding from a Civil Court to another Civil Court, both of which are subordinate to such High Court but situate in different States in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, for consideration and decision?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court is the sole authority for inter-state transfers under Section 25 CPC, or if a common High Court can transfer cases under Section 24 CPC. | A common High Court can transfer cases under Section 24 CPC. | Section 25 applies to states with separate High Courts, not common High Courts. Section 24 empowers common High Courts to transfer cases between subordinate courts within their jurisdiction. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
Cases
- Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree [(2008) 9 SCC 648] – Supreme Court: The Court discussed the scope of Sections 22 to 25 of the CPC, emphasizing that only the Supreme Court can transfer cases between courts subordinate to different High Courts.
- Megha Jain vs. Kartik Jain [(2019) 6 GLR 379] – Gauhati High Court: A larger bench of the Gauhati High Court overruled Pomi Sengupta, holding that it has jurisdiction to transfer cases between states under its jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC.
- Pomi Sengupta vs. Biswajit Sengupta [(2015) 6 GLR 396] – Gauhati High Court: This case was overruled by Megha Jain. It had held that the High Court lacked the power to transfer cases between states.
- Chalasani Deepthi vs. Chalasani Krishna Chaitanya [2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 978] – Andhra Pradesh High Court: The High Court held that it could transfer cases between courts subordinate to it, even if they were in different states, as long as it was the common High Court.
- Irene Blanch Khera vs. Glenn John Vijay [2018 (6) Mh. L.J. 199] – Bombay High Court: The Bombay High Court followed Chalasani Deepthi, allowing a transfer under Section 24 of the CPC.
- D. Saibaba v Bar Council of India & Anr. [(2003) 6 SCC 186] – Supreme Court: This case was cited by the appellants in support of the principle that consequences of a particular interpretation is a relevant consideration.
- Amarendra Pratap Singh vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati [(2004) 10 SCC 653] – Supreme Court: This case was cited by the court in support of the principle that a general law cannot defeat the provisions of a special law to the extent to which they are in conflict.
Legal Provisions
- Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): General power of transfer and withdrawal of suits by the High Court or the District Court.
- Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Power of the Supreme Court to transfer suits, appeals, or other proceedings between different states.
- Article 214 of the Constitution of India: Mandates a High Court for each State.
- Article 231 of the Constitution of India: Provides for a common High Court for two or more States.
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India: Recognizes the power of superintendence of every High Court over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
- Article 235 of the Constitution of India: Vests the control over all District Courts and courts subordinate thereto in the High Court.
- Article 228 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the High Court to withdraw a case from a subordinate court if it involves a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
Authority Table
| Authority | Court | How Treated |
|---|---|---|
| Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished based on different facts; ratio decidendi not applicable. |
| Megha Jain vs. Kartik Jain | Gauhati High Court | Approved and followed. |
| Pomi Sengupta vs. Biswajit Sengupta | Gauhati High Court | Overruled by Megha Jain. |
| Chalasani Deepthi vs. Chalasani Krishna Chaitanya | Andhra Pradesh High Court | Approved and followed. |
| Irene Blanch Khera vs. Glenn John Vijay | Bombay High Court | Approved and followed. |
| D. Saibaba v Bar Council of India & Anr. | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the principle of statutory interpretation. |
| Amarendra Pratap Singh vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the principle that a general law cannot defeat a special law. |
| Section 24, CPC | – | Interpreted to allow inter-state transfers by common High Courts. |
| Section 25, CPC | – | Interpreted to apply to states with separate High Courts, not common High Courts. |
| Article 214, Constitution of India | – | Cited to define the existence of High Courts for each state. |
| Article 231, Constitution of India | – | Cited to define the existence of common High Courts for multiple states. |
| Article 227, Constitution of India | – | Cited to define the power of superintendence of High Courts. |
| Article 235, Constitution of India | – | Cited to define the administrative control of High Courts over subordinate courts. |
| Article 228, Constitution of India | – | Cited to define the power of High Courts to withdraw cases involving constitutional questions. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Party | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Article 231 allows for a common High Court. | Appellants | Accepted. |
| Section 24 CPC empowers inter-state transfer within its jurisdiction. | Appellants | Accepted for common High Courts. |
| Emphasis on “court subordinate to it” in Section 24. | Appellants | Accepted. |
| Section 25 applies only to different High Courts. | Appellants | Accepted. |
| Section 25 is the only provision for inter-state transfers. | State of Nagaland | Rejected for common High Courts. |
| Section 24 is limited to intra-state transfers. | State of Nagaland | Rejected for common High Courts. |
| Reliance on Durgesh Sharma. | State of Nagaland | Rejected as the ratio decidendi was not applicable. |
| Section 25 exclusively for Supreme Court. | Private Respondents | Rejected for common High Courts. |
| Durgesh Sharma observations were obiter dicta. | Private Respondents | Rejected as the ratio decidendi was not applicable. |
| Megha Jain incorrectly interprets Section 24. | Private Respondents | Rejected; Megha Jain was approved. |
| Sections 22-24 and Section 25 are distinct. | Private Respondents | Rejected as Section 24 was harmoniously interpreted with Section 25. |
| Legislative intent for Supreme Court’s exclusive power. | Private Respondents | Rejected for common High Courts. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Court held that the decision in Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree [ (2008) 9 SCC 648 ]* was distinguishable based on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Court clarified that the ratio of Durgesh Sharma would not apply to cases involving common High Courts. The Court approved and followed the decision in Megha Jain vs. Kartik Jain [(2019) 6 GLR 379]*, which had overruled Pomi Sengupta vs. Biswajit Sengupta [(2015) 6 GLR 396]*. The Court also approved and followed the decisions in Chalasani Deepthi vs. Chalasani Krishna Chaitanya [2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 978]* and Irene Blanch Khera vs. Glenn John Vijay [2018 (6) Mh. L.J. 199]*.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the need to ensure “access to justice,” particularly for litigants in remote areas. The Court emphasized the unique nature of common High Courts and the need to avoid a narrow interpretation of Section 25 of the CPC that would create undue hardship for litigants within the jurisdiction of these courts. The Court was also swayed by the need to harmonize the general provisions of Section 24 with the specific provisions of Section 25, ensuring that neither provision is rendered redundant or ineffective. The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, recognizing that requiring litigants to approach the Supreme Court for inter-state transfers within the jurisdiction of a common High Court would be overly burdensome and inefficient.
Sentiment Analysis Ranking
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Access to Justice | 35% |
| Harmonious Interpretation of Sections 24 and 25 | 30% |
| Unique Nature of Common High Courts | 25% |
| Practical Implications and Efficiency | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Consideration | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that “a true and proper interpretation of section 25 of the CPC leads us to the conclusion that the same applies to inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding where both States have a High Court in terms of Article 214 of the Constitution and not to a transfer where both States have a common High Court under Article 231 thereof.”
The Court further observed that “the power under section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High Court even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court for two or more States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the Civil Courts (transferor and transferee) are subordinate to it.”
The Court also noted that “Any construction of section 25 which would impede “access to justice”, considered to be a Fundamental Right, has to be eschewed.”
The Court reasoned that the power of transfer under Section 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b)(ii) cannot be exercised by the Gauhati High Court for transfer of a civil suit from a court in Assam or Nagaland to a Civil Court in Tripura or Manipur or Meghalaya, because the said States, from 2012, are no longer part of the Gauhati High Court and are since having High Courts of their own.
The Court rejected the argument that Section 25 of the CPC is the only provision for inter-state transfers, and that the High Court’s power under Section 24 is limited to intra-state transfers. The Court clarified that the decision in Durgesh Sharma was distinguishable on facts, and the ratio of that case would not apply to cases involving common High Courts.
The Court emphasized that a narrow interpretation of Section 25 would create a situation where litigants would be unduly burdened by having to approach the Supreme Court for inter-state transfers within the jurisdiction of a common High Court.
Key Takeaways
- Common High Courts, like the Gauhati High Court, have the power to transfer cases between states under their jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC.
- Section 25 of the CPC applies to inter-state transfers between states with separate High Courts, not common High Courts.
- This decision ensures that litigants within the jurisdiction of common High Courts do not have to approach the Supreme Court for inter-state transfers, promoting “access to justice.”
- The judgment clarifies the interplay between Sections 24 and 25 of the CPC, harmonizing the general and special provisions.
- This decision will have significant implications for the functioning of common High Courts in India, particularly in the North-Eastern states.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s previous order and directed it to reconsider the appellants’ application under Section 24 of the CPC on its own merits. The Court requested the Gauhati High Court to assign reasonable priority to the application and dispose of it as early as possible.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a common High Court, constituted under Article 231 of the Constitution of India, has the power to transfer cases between civil courts within the states under its jurisdiction, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision changes the previous position of law, where it was understood that only the Supreme Court had the power to transfer cases between states under Section 25 of the CPC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shah Newaz Khan vs. State of Nagaland clarifies that common High Courts can transfer civil cases between states under their jurisdiction using Section 24 of the CPC. This decision ensures that litigants within the jurisdiction of these courts do not have to approach the Supreme Court for inter-state transfers, promoting “access to justice” and harmonizing the general and special provisions of the CPC. The Gauhati High Court was directed to reconsider the appellants’ application based on the clarified legal position.