High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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