Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's recent judgment in Union Of India (s) v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi And Others (s). (2023 INSC 210) addresses pivotal questions regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. This case scrutinizes whether a High Court outside the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) Principal Bench can entertain a writ petition challenging a transfer order issued by the CAT.

The key parties involved are the Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General, and Sanjiv Chaturvedi along with other respondents, who are challenging the transfer of their application from the Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The crux of the dispute lies in whether the High Court of Uttarakhand possesses the jurisdiction to hear such a petition, given that the CAT's Principal Bench is located in New Delhi.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which had allowed the writ petition challenging the transfer order by the CAT. The High Court had set aside the transfer order, asserting that the Nainital Circuit Bench possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Article 226(2), as a part of the cause of action arose within Uttarakhand.

The Union of India contended that the transfer should remain with the Principal Bench in New Delhi, emphasizing that the CAT's decisions related to policy decisions with nationwide repercussions should be centrally adjudicated. The High Court, however, relied on previous Supreme Court judgments, notably L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) and Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022), to support its stance on territorial jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court recognized the complexity of the matter, highlighting the tension between centralized jurisdiction for policy-related decisions and the constitutional provision under Article 226(2) that allows High Courts to exercise writ jurisdiction where a part of the cause of action arises.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references two landmark cases:

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): This case established that decisions of tribunals under Article 323-A and 323-B are subject to scrutiny by the High Court within the tribunal's jurisdiction.
• Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022): This recent case reinforced the notion that only the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal can entertain writ petitions challenging its orders.

These precedents collectively underscore the principle that the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts is paramount in determining the appropriate forum for judicial review of tribunal decisions.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court delved into the constitutional framework, particularly Article 226(2), which empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The contention revolves around whether this provision allows any High Court with a part of the cause of action within its territory to hear a case against a tribunal primarily situated elsewhere.

The Court acknowledged the arguments presented by both sides. The Union emphasized the practical advantages and the centralized nature of policy decisions, while the petitioner highlighted the constitutional intent behind Article 226(2) to provide accessible justice.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the existing framework inadequate to resolve the jurisdictional ambiguities and recognized the necessity for a larger bench to adjudicate the matter comprehensively.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for administrative law and the functioning of tribunals in India. A definitive interpretation clarifying the extent of High Courts' jurisdiction under Article 226(2) will streamline the process of judicial review, reduce jurisdictional conflicts, and enhance accessibility to justice for individuals across various states.

Moreover, the decision underscores the balance between centralized administrative control and decentralized judicial oversight, potentially influencing future litigation involving the interplay between tribunals and High Courts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's referral to a Larger Bench in the case of Union Of India (s) v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi And Others (s). (2023 INSC 210) signifies a crucial step towards resolving the ambiguities surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2). The outcome is poised to define the contours of judicial review over tribunal decisions, ensuring that the constitutional mandate for accessible and equitable justice is upheld.

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to interpreting constitutional provisions in harmony with established precedents while remaining responsive to evolving legal challenges. The final determination will not only impact administrative litigations but also reinforce the foundational principles of federalism and judicial oversight in India's legal system.