Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Issue Regarding Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court Matter Referred to Larger Bench – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court in a recent Judgement (UIO Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. D.D. 03 March 2023) that found that an important issue raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and the effect of Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution. The issue affects a large number of employees and is of public importance. The court has decided that the matter should be considered by a Larger Bench due to its significance and has directed the registry to place it before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest.

Union of India is appealing against a High Court order that allowed a writ petition and set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The original writ petitioner had filed a petition in Nainital CAT Circuit Bench challenging the empanelment process for officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above in the Central Government, which was based on a 360-degree appraisal system. The writ petitioner sought to quash this system, restrain the filling up of posts of Joint Secretary and above through a contract system, and direct the respondents to remove the artificial time lag created between empanelment of officers of different services.

The Union of India filed a transfer application seeking to transfer the original application filed by the writ petitioner from Nainital CAT Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The Chairman of the Tribunal ordered the transfer, but the original writ petitioner challenged this order before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Union of India opposed a writ petition filed in the High Court of Uttarakhand and challenged its territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. The Union of India argued that the case should be transferred to New Delhi since all relevant files and papers are located there and the decision to appoint Joint Secretaries on a contractual basis was made in New Delhi. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The Union of India has appealed the High Court's decision.

Supreme Court stated that the important issue raised in this appeal 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, and held 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. Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest so that the aforesaid issue is resolved at the earliest.

Supreme Court found that an important issue raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and the effect of Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution. The issue affects a large number of employees and is of public importance. The court has decided that the matter should be considered by a Larger Bench due to its significance and has directed the registry to place it before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest.

UIO Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News