Constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act not always maintainable before Delhi merely because it is the seat of Union of India #indianlaws

Passing of legislation by itself do not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor. A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question

What should be the determining factor to ascertain territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was the question came up for adjudication before the Court in the matter titled as Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another, decided on 28.04.2004 [(2004) 6 SCC 254).

A submission was made that when constitutionality of a parliamentary act is in question, the High Court of Delhi has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. However, the contrary arguments were that since no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi, the writ petition was rightly not entertained by the High Court of Delhi. 

Cause of action implies a right to sue.  The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute cause of action. Cause of action can be said to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court.  It would also be stated to mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action.  Its importance is beyond any doubt.  For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. 

The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted.  Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the court.

Passing of legislation by itself do not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor. A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question. A parliamentary legislation when receives the assent of the President of India and published in an Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India.   If passing of legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country.  It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner.  A writ court would not determine a constitutional question in vacuum.

The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction.  An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject to the applicability of the Act. A writ petition, however, questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act shall not be maintainable in the High Court of Delhi only because the seat of the Union of India is in Delhi.

Even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit.  In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. 

Authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation would not by itself constitute any cause of action or cases arising. Framing of a statute, statutory rule or issue of an executive order or instruction would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof. When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority.