In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has laid out the tests that need to be conducted to
determine if the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of a high court under Article 226(2)
of the Constitution. This decision has come in the wake of several conflicting decisions by high courts
regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a high court. The case in question pertained to a petition filed
by a group of individuals challenging the acquisition of land by the government for a public project.
The petition was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed it on the ground
that the cause of action did not arise within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners then
approached the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the High Court.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet
Saran, while hearing the case, referred to various earlier judgments of the court on the issue of
territorial jurisdiction of high courts. The bench observed that the question of jurisdiction arises
when the cause of action has not arisen wholly within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court. The
court laid down two tests to determine if the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of a
high court.
The first test is to see if the defendant resides or carries on business within the jurisdiction of the high court. If the defendant resides or carries on business within the jurisdiction of the high court, the cause of action would be deemed to have arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.
The second test is to see if any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction
of the high court. If any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the
high court, the court would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The court also held that the
onus of proving that the cause of action has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the high
court would be on the defendant. The court observed that the defendant must show that none of
the acts constituting the cause of action have taken place within the jurisdiction of the high court.
The court further observed that the tests laid down by it would not be conclusive and that the court
would have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine if the cause of action
has arisen within its jurisdiction. The decision of the Supreme Court is significant as it lays down clear
tests to determine the jurisdiction of high courts in cases where the cause of action has not arisen
wholly within their territorial jurisdiction. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications as it
would help in resolving the conflicting decisions of high courts on the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
Overall, the decision of the Supreme Court in this case provides clarity on the issue of territorial
jurisdiction of high courts in cases where the cause of action has not arisen wholly within their
territorial jurisdiction. The tests laid down by the court would help in determining the jurisdiction of
high courts in such cases and would help in resolving the conflicting decisions of high courts on this
issue.
Written By- Lakshya Sharma students of 1st year BBA LLB at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
