Likelihood Of Divergence Of Views Cannot Be A Ground For Transfer Under Article 139A Of Constitution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.

The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari dismissed the Transfer petitions under Article 139A(1) read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, filed by Union of India and other parties who prayed for transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court.

Before the Apex Court bench, it was submitted that more than 140 writ petitions have been filed across the country in as many as 18 High Courts in this regard. With large number of petitions involving similar and akin issues being taken up in different High Courts, there is every likelihood of conflicting views being expressed by different High Courts, which may lead to an undesirable situation, it was contended. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that if such a contention regarding the possibility of conflicting decisions by different High Courts is accepted, it would practically mean that every challenge to the validity of a central statute shall have to be decided by the Supreme Court, which is not the mandate and framework of the constitutional scheme. Mere possibility of divergence of views or interpretations cannot be a ground for transfer of all the proceedings to this Court, it was contended.

Taking note of these rival contentions and other precedents cited before it, the bench observed that the decision to transfer or not, to the Supreme Court or to one High Court, has been taken by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 139A of the Constitution of India with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances. While dismissing the Transfer Petitions, the court observed:

"No hard and fast rule or any structured formula is provided nor appears desirable; a comprehensive view of all the facts and relevant surrounding factors is the best guiding light for exercise of this jurisdiction under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.. In the present set of facts and circumstances, for what has been noticed and discussed hereinabove, we are clearly of the view that transfer of the pending writ petitions from the respective High Courts is not called for. The likelihood of divergence of views, looking to the framework of the statute itself, cannot be a ground for transfer. Equally, there appears no reason to transfer the matters to any one High Court; rather it appears just and proper that the petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts are decided with reference to their own factual background and the law applicable."

Case details

Union of India vs United Planters Association Of Southern India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573 | Transfer Petition (C) 884-895 OF 2016 | 11 July 2022

Coram: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath

Counsel:  ASG KM Nataraj for Union of India/petitioners, Sr. Adv. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Advr. K. Kasturi, Sr.Adv Suruchii Aggarwal , Sr. Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv  Rajiv Tyagi and Adv R. Anand Padmanabhan.

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 139A - Transfer - The likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer - Decision to transfer or not, to the Supreme Court or to one High Court, has to be taken with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances - No hard and fast rule or any structured formula is provided nor appears desirable. (Para 16)

Summary - Transfer Petitions seeking transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court - Dismissed - It appears just and proper that the petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts are decided with reference to their own factual background and the law applicable.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment