Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts: Supreme Court refers the matter to a Larger Bench in Service Law Dispute (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No. /2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 530/2022)

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction over a case where the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order was passed outside its territorial limits, even if part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India is grappling with this crucial question in a service law dispute. This case examines the extent of a High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution when dealing with orders from the CAT, particularly concerning transfer orders. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, has referred the matter to a larger bench due to the significant legal questions involved.

Case Background

The case originated from an Original Application (OA) filed by Sanjiv Chaturvedi before the Nainital Circuit Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Chaturvedi challenged the 360-degree appraisal system for empanelment of officers at the Joint Secretary level and above in the Central Government. He also contested the practice of filling these positions through contract systems. The Union of India then filed a transfer application to move the case from the Nainital Bench to the Principal Bench of the CAT in New Delhi. The Chairman of the CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, approved this transfer. Chaturvedi then challenged the transfer order before the High Court of Uttarakhand, arguing that the Nainital Bench had jurisdiction since part of the cause of action arose within Uttarakhand.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Uttarakhand set aside the order of the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, stating that there is no legal requirement that a policy decision must be challenged only before the Principal Bench. The High Court also noted that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, does not specify that only the Principal Bench can hear challenges to policy decisions. The Union of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Uttarakhand High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs. Specifically, Article 226(2) states that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the functioning of CAT, is also relevant. Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, empowers the Chairman of the Tribunal to transfer cases from one bench to another. The Supreme Court also considered its previous judgments in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133, which discuss the jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunal decisions.

Arguments

Arguments by the Union of India:

• The Union of India argued that the High Court of Uttarakhand lacked territorial jurisdiction because the order under challenge was passed by the Chairman of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
• They contended that no part of the cause of action arose within the territory of Uttarakhand.
• The Union relied on the decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133, which held that decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls.
• It was submitted that since the policy was framed in New Delhi, the names were invited for selection in New Delhi, the selection process begins and ends in New Delhi, therefore, only the Principal Bench at New Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to hear the OA.
• It was also submitted that since the relevant files are lying in New Delhi and since the relevant witnesses would be available in New Delhi, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Principal Bench.
• They argued that since the policy decision of the Central Government would have nationwide repercussions, only the Principal Bench would be the suitable bench for deciding the validity of the policy decision.

Arguments by Sanjiv Chaturvedi (Original Writ Petitioner):

• Chaturvedi argued that the High Court of Uttarakhand had jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution because part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
• He submitted that the names of eligible candidates for the post of Joint Secretary are called from the States, thus, the names are recommended by the States; the service records of the eligible candidates are with the State and the service records are forwarded by the State.
• He contended that the decision to appoint Joint Secretaries on a contractual basis adversely affects his right to be considered for the post, thus the impact of the policy decision deprives his right in the State of Uttarakhand.
• He argued that the decision in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 261 should not be interpreted to limit the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2).
• He argued that all the Benches constituted under Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 would have equal jurisdiction.
• He submitted that limiting the remedy under Article 226 is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and access to justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list, but the core issue it identified for consideration is:

• What is the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to decide a challenge to an order passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, particularly in light of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 – Supreme Court of India: This case was considered for its observations on the jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunal decisions.
• Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for its holding that decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls.
• Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for the observation that the High Court would have jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arises in its jurisdiction irrespective of the location of the authority.
• Alchemist Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 335 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for noting the development of law in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and for holding that a writ petition can be instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which cause of action in whole or in part arises.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article grants High Courts the power to issue writs.
• Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India: This provision specifies that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory.
• Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section empowers the Chairman of the Tribunal to transfer cases from one bench to another.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261: The Court acknowledged the principles laid down in this case regarding the jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunal decisions but noted the need to clarify whether it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court where the tribunal is located.

✓ Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133: The Court considered this case as a precedent supporting the view that the High Court where the tribunal is located has jurisdiction. However, the Court also acknowledged the need to re-examine this view in light of Article 226(2).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench indicates that it was grappling with the following key points:

• The conflict between the principle that High Courts have jurisdiction over tribunals within their territory (as per L. Chandra Kumar and Alapan Bandyopadhyay) and the constitutional provision in Article 226(2), which grants jurisdiction based on the cause of action.
• The need to ensure access to justice and avoid undue hardship to employees who may be posted far from the Principal Bench of the CAT.
• The importance of maintaining the power of judicial review by High Courts as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.
• The need for a definitive interpretation of the law to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure consistency in the application of jurisdictional principles.

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), specifically the interpretation of Article 226(2) and the need to reconcile conflicting precedents. Factual aspects of the case (30%), such as where the cause of action arose, also played a role, but were secondary to the legal analysis.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments and the legal framework, recognizing the need for a clear and consistent interpretation of the law. The court did not reject any alternative interpretations but rather highlighted the need for a larger bench to resolve the conflict.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has acknowledged a significant legal issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts over orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
• The Court has recognized the conflict between its previous judgments and the constitutional provision in Article 226(2).
• The matter has been referred to a larger bench, indicating the importance and complexity of the issue.
• The final decision will have significant implications for the jurisdiction of High Courts and the access to justice for employees of the Central Government.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest, so that the issue of territorial jurisdiction could be resolved.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that there is a need to clarify the law regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts over orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), particularly in light of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are conflicting interpretations of its previous judgments on this issue and has referred the matter to a larger bench for resolution. This indicates a potential change in the previous position of law, which was interpreted to mean that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, has the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the issue of territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in matters related to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to a larger bench underscores the complexity and significance of the legal questions involved. The Court has recognized the need to reconcile its previous rulings with the constitutional provisions of Article 226(2), which deals with the cause of action, and to ensure that the principles of access to justice are upheld. The outcome of this referral will have far-reaching implications for the jurisdiction of High Courts and the rights of government employees across India.