Can HC Exercise Jurisdiction Over A Tribunal Situated Outside Its Territorial Limits? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

The Bench asked the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India at the earliest so that the issued can be resolved as soon as possible. 

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India to argue that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had held that “all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.” Thereafter, he resorted to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay. He averred that in the said judgment it was held that the the Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an order passed by the CAT Principal Bench at New Delhi.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing on behalf of Chaturvedi, submitted that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, any High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 provided a part cause of action has arisen in its jurisdiction irrespective of whether the authority or government which passed the order is not located within the jurisdiction of the said High Court. He argued that the decision in L. Chandra Kumar may not be interpreted in a manner so as to restrict the jurisdiction of other High Courts under Article 226(2) as the same would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It was urged that the observation in L. Chandra Kumar that all decisions of tribunals would be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal concerned falls, is not an exclusion of the jurisdiction of the other high courts which may have jurisdiction, particularly, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

He further averred that the judgment in Alapan Bandhyopadhyay may need to be reconsidered on the present issue. Mr. Divan also referred to the historical background of Article 226 and the subsequent development including statement of objects and reasons to the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 and the remarks of the then Law Minister.

A Division Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted -

“Regard being had to the important issue raised by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the submissions made by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and having gone through the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) and that the issue involved is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts and the effect of introduction of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and the statement of the Law Minister while introducing Article 226(2) of the Constitution referred to hereinabove and that the issue involved affects a large number of employees and is of public importance, we think it appropriate that the matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court to decide a challenge to an order passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi should be considered by a Larger Bench.”

Background

Chaturvedi filed an application before the Nainital Circuit Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the existing system of 360 degree appraisal in empanelment of officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above in the Central Government. He also sought directions to restrain the Government from filling up the posts of Joint Secretary and above through the contract system in future. The Union Government filed an application seeking transfer of the matter to the Principal Bench, New Delhi.

The Principal Bench, by order dated 04.12.2020, allowed the transfer after noting that the procedure of empanelment which is under challenge would impact the very functioning of the Central Government.The order of transfer was assailed in a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court by Chaturvedi. The petitioner impugned the transfer order stating that the ground on which the Union Government sought transfer was untenable. The Government had argued that since the petitioner had challenged a policy decision which would have a “nationwide repercussion”, the transfer was imperative.

Before the Uttarakhand High Court, the petitioner had argued that if the Parliament intended that only the Principal Bench could decide issues of national importance, it would have indicated so in the statute or could have barred other Benches from hearing matters of such nature. However, in reality there exists no such bar to prevent Benches other than the Principal Bench from deciding policy decisions of the Central Government.

The Union Government challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand High Court to entertain the writ petition. It submitted that since all the relevant files were in New Delhi and the cause of action had not arisen in Uttarakhand, but Delhi, the case be transferred to New Delhi. It was categorically pointed out that 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. The petitioner countered this submission pertaining to cause of action and argued that part of the cause of action had indeed arisen in Uttarakhand, as the names of the eligible candidates for the post of Joint Secretary was called from the State; names are recommended from the State; service records of the eligible candidates are with the State and the service records are forwarded by the States; finally, the impact of the policy decision is also felt in the State.

Considering the decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. UoI, the High Court allowed the petition, observing there is no requirement of law that a policy decision must, necessarily, be challenged before the Principal Bench and that there is no provision under the Act, 1985 that a challenge to a policy decision can be heard only by the Principal Bench.

SG Tushar Mehta and ASG KM Nataraj appeared for Union of India

Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. appeared for Sanjiv Chaturvedi 

[Case Title: Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi And Ors. SLP(C) No 530 of 2022]

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Ms. Apoorva Jain, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv.

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Constitution of India - Article 226(2) - Jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a challenge to an order passed by a Tribunal situated outside its jurisdiction- Supreme Court refers to larger bench-L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 & Union of India Vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133 discussed