Supreme Court Transfers Challenge to Forest Rights Act: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017

Citation: [Not available in the source]

Judges: Dipak Misra (Chief Justice of India), A. M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud

Can the Supreme Court transfer a case from a High Court to itself when both cases concern the same legal issue? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a transfer petition concerning the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. This case involves a procedural matter of transferring a writ petition challenging the validity of the Forest Rights Act from the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to the Supreme Court, where a similar challenge was already pending. The bench consisted of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud.

Case Background

The Union of India filed a Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 423 of 2012, seeking to move Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15798 of 2009 from the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to the Supreme Court. The writ petition before the High Court challenged the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Act No. 2 of 2007), also known as the Forest Rights Act. Simultaneously, another writ petition, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 50 of 2008, was pending before the Supreme Court, also challenging the vires (legal validity) of the same Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Union of India, noting that a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Forest Rights Act was already pending before the Supreme Court, filed a transfer petition to bring the similar case from the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to the Supreme Court. On January 13, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a notice in this transfer petition and stayed further proceedings in the High Court. The office report confirmed that all respondents were served notice. Since no appearance was entered on behalf of the respondents, the Court proceeded to consider the matter.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework at issue in this case is the Constitution of India, specifically Article 139A, which empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases. Article 139A of the Constitution of India states:

“139A. Transfer of certain cases. —(1) Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied that such cases involve substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself.”

Additionally, the case concerns the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Act No. 2 of 2007), which is the substantive law under challenge. The Act aims to recognize and vest forest rights in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.

Arguments

The Union of India, as the petitioner, argued that since a substantive writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 was already pending before the Supreme Court, the writ petition raising the same issue in the High Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court. This was to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure judicial efficiency.

The respondents did not appear before the Court, and thus no arguments were presented on their behalf.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the order, but the implicit issue was:

1. Whether the writ petition pending before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, challenging the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, should be transferred to the Supreme Court, given that a similar matter is already pending before it.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly rely on any specific case laws or books in this order. However, the Court relied on Article 139A of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases.

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered Article 139A of the Constitution of India and the fact that a similar writ petition challenging the validity of the Forest Rights Act was already pending before it. The Court noted that:

“Since a substantive Writ Petition under Article 32 is pending before this Court where the vires of the same central statute is in issue, we accede to the prayer for transfer of the proceedings pending before the High Court to this Court.”

The Court ordered the transfer of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15798 of 2009 from the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to the Supreme Court. The Court directed the registry to take necessary steps to ensure that the papers and proceedings were transmitted to the Supreme Court expeditiously.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the case was primarily influenced by the need to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure judicial efficiency. The presence of a substantive writ petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the same central statute, was a key factor. The Court’s decision was procedural, aiming to consolidate similar legal challenges in one forum for a more cohesive and consistent adjudication. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can transfer cases from High Courts to itself when similar legal issues are pending before both courts.
• This power is exercised under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.
• The primary purpose of such transfers is to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure judicial efficiency.
• The presence of a substantive writ petition challenging the same central statute before the Supreme Court is a strong ground for transfer.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the registry to take necessary steps to ensure that the papers and proceedings of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15798 of 2009 are transmitted to the Supreme Court expeditiously.

Development of Law

This case reinforces the Supreme Court’s power under Article 139A of the Constitution to transfer cases to itself to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of law and to avoid conflicting decisions. The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a substantive writ petition challenging the validity of a central statute is pending before the Supreme Court, a similar petition pending before a High Court can be transferred to the Supreme Court. This decision does not change the existing position of law but rather applies it to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad is a procedural order that transfers a case from the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to the Supreme Court. This transfer is based on the fact that a similar case concerning the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, was already pending before the Supreme Court. This decision ensures that the legal challenges to the Act are consolidated in one forum, promoting judicial efficiency and preventing conflicting judgments.