- Advertisement -
BRAND-NEW DELHI: Just over a year after ruling that just the Delhi high court and no other HCs would have jurisdiction to captivate a plea versus a choice taken by the primary bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court on Friday said its decision in the event connecting to previous West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandhopadhyay required to be re-examined.
In January in 2015, the leading court had actually enabled the Centre’s plea and reserve the order of the Calcutta HC which had actually quashed CAT chairman’s order to move the hearing on Bandyopadhyay’s plea versus disciplinary procedures from Calcutta bench of CAT to itsprincipal bench in Delhi. The pinnacle court had actually held that just Delhi HC would have jurisdiction to handle any petition versus the chairman’s order.
The exact same concern turned up in the legal wrangle in between the Centre and Magsaysay award winner IFS officer SanjivChaturvedi with the Uttrakhand HC quashing the CAT principal bench order to move the case from Allahabad bench to itself and the Centre questioning the HC jurisdiction in view of the SC order in 2015.
Observing that the concern of territorial jurisdiction of HCs is essential and it would impact numerous civil servant who are published throughout the nation, a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said it needs to be adjudicated by a bigger bench. “Let the registry place the matter before the Chief Justice of India at the earliest,” the bench said.
The bench concurred with the contention of supporter Shyam Divan who pleaded the court that in 2015’s decision need to be re-examined as it would produce massive challenges to workers who would be required to come to Delhi to challenge in Delhi HC the negative any order passed versus them by CAT primary bench.
“The remedies under Article 226 and Article 227 (before HCs) are extremely valuable remedies available to citizens where they reside or carry on business or are posted. The scheme does not require citizens to come exclusively all the way to Delhi to seek redressal. Thus, limiting the remedy under Article 226 is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, contrary to the spirit and principle of access to justice and contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution. . . ,” Divan said. He said all 25 HCs have comparable jurisdiction and no discrimination or unique treatment is imagined to any specific HC.
In January in 2015, the leading court had actually enabled the Centre’s plea and reserve the order of the Calcutta HC which had actually quashed CAT chairman’s order to move the hearing on Bandyopadhyay’s plea versus disciplinary procedures from Calcutta bench of CAT to itsprincipal bench in Delhi. The pinnacle court had actually held that just Delhi HC would have jurisdiction to handle any petition versus the chairman’s order.
The exact same concern turned up in the legal wrangle in between the Centre and Magsaysay award winner IFS officer SanjivChaturvedi with the Uttrakhand HC quashing the CAT principal bench order to move the case from Allahabad bench to itself and the Centre questioning the HC jurisdiction in view of the SC order in 2015.
Observing that the concern of territorial jurisdiction of HCs is essential and it would impact numerous civil servant who are published throughout the nation, a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said it needs to be adjudicated by a bigger bench. “Let the registry place the matter before the Chief Justice of India at the earliest,” the bench said.
The bench concurred with the contention of supporter Shyam Divan who pleaded the court that in 2015’s decision need to be re-examined as it would produce massive challenges to workers who would be required to come to Delhi to challenge in Delhi HC the negative any order passed versus them by CAT primary bench.
“The remedies under Article 226 and Article 227 (before HCs) are extremely valuable remedies available to citizens where they reside or carry on business or are posted. The scheme does not require citizens to come exclusively all the way to Delhi to seek redressal. Thus, limiting the remedy under Article 226 is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, contrary to the spirit and principle of access to justice and contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution. . . ,” Divan said. He said all 25 HCs have comparable jurisdiction and no discrimination or unique treatment is imagined to any specific HC.
- Advertisement -
