"No Territorial Jurisdiction Simply Because CBSE Head Office In Delhi": Delhi High Court

Refusing to entertain a plea by a school student in Ghaziabad against an increase in her CBSE-affiliated school's fees, the Delhi High Court has said that as a central body, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) can defend proceedings anywhere in the country and that the Delhi High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction in all matters of CBSE merely because its head office is in Delhi.

Observing that the plea has more to do with the state of Uttar Pradesh than just the CBSE, the court ruled that basis the principle of forum non conveniens the jurisdictional High Court in Uttar Pradesh would be a more effective forum for the petitioner to agitate her grievances.

The court further said that it does not have territorial jurisdiction over litigation involving the CBSE simply because the Board's head office was in Delhi.

The principle of forum non conveniens is a common law legal doctrine whereby a court "acknowledges that another forum or court is more appropriate for the proceedings and sends the case to such a forum."

Justice Prateek Jalan held, "...I am of the view that the mere presence of the CBSE as a respondent in the petition is not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court may decline to entertain a writ petition, if it comes to the conclusion that it is not the most appropriate Court for the purpose. In arriving at such a conclusion, the Court will consider inter alia the existence of a more appropriate forum where a petitioner could effectively agitate her grievances."

The bench said that, "The issues which the petitioner has raised in this Court can very well be raised before the jurisdictional High Court, which is entertaining allied grievances in the writ petition..."

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the student had not been allowed to attend school for several months on account of being unable to pay the whole fees, therefore, the petitioner also prayed for compensation, among other reliefs.

Praying the Court to hear the matter, the petitioner's father had submitted that the Delhi High Court was the appropriate forum to adjudicate upon the issue, as the relief was sought against CBSE, which is based in Delhi.

He also argued that the Board had the authority to pass directions regarding issues of fee-hikes, etc to its affiliated schools.

However, the court remarked that, "The petitioner's contentions regarding improper or inadequate oversight by the respondent authorities implicate not just the CBSE, but even more importantly, the State of Uttar Pradesh," and therefore, said that the jurisdictional High Court in Uttar Pradesh would be better equipped to redress the petitioner's grievances.

Adv. Seema Dolo, appearing on behalf of CBSE, argued against territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court stating that the Board also has regional offices for schools in each jurisdiction and thus the plea would not be maintainable outside the limits of such regions.

She also said that as CBSE deals with Classes 10 to 12 only, an issue concerning a student of Class 9 was beyond its scope.

The court was informed that the petitioner had also filed another plea on the same issue before the Allahabad High Court.

Click Here To Download/Read Judgment