Why does territorial jurisdiction matter when constitutional remedies themselves are meant to be wide and unfettered?
This question lies at the heart of the interpretation of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, particularly as clarified by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Jayashwals Neco Ltd. v. Union of India (judgment dated 02.07.2007).
I. Constitutional Foundation of Article 226
Article 226 of the Constitution confers plenary and extraordinary jurisdiction upon High Courts to issue writs, orders, or directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.” Unlike Article 32, which may be suspended during a national emergency, Article 226 remains operative, thereby serving as a constitutional guarantee against arbitrary State action, illegal detention, and administrative excesses. Its scope is thus both remedial and protective, ensuring access to constitutional justice at the High Court level.
II. The Jurisdictional Dilemma: Identifying the Proper Forum
While the breadth of Article 226 is unquestionable, its exercise necessarily raises a threshold issue: which High Court is competent to entertain the writ petition? Traditionally, jurisdiction is determined by the place where the cause of action arises. However, at the time of the Constitution’s enactment in 1950, Article 226 did not expressly address this aspect, leading to jurisdictional ambiguities and inconsistent judicial approaches.
III. Constitutional Evolution: Introduction of the “Cause of Action” Doctrine
To resolve this lacuna, the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 introduced Article 226(1-A) (effective from 05.10.1963), expressly incorporating the concept of cause of action as a basis for territorial jurisdiction. This provision enabled a High Court to exercise jurisdiction even when the seat of the Government or authority was located outside its territorial limits, provided the cause of action arose wholly or in part within its territory.
Subsequently, the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 (effective from 01.02.1977) renumbered Article 226(1-A) as Article 226(2). Importantly, this amendment did not curtail jurisdiction; rather, it amplified and clarified the power of High Courts by constitutionally recognising jurisdiction based on the place where the cause of action arises.
IV. Judicial Clarification: Jayaswals Neco and the Scope of Article 226(2)
In its judgment dated 02 July 2007, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi undertook a detailed examination of the ambit of Article 226(2) and authoritatively clarified the principles governing territorial jurisdiction in writ proceedings. The Court held that a High Court is competent to assume jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territorial limits, regardless of the location of the seat of the Government or the authority against whom the writ is sought.
To elucidate this position, the Court, in paragraph 29 of the judgment, articulated an analytical framework explaining the interplay between Articles 226(1) and 226(2). The Court observed that where both the seat of the Government or authority and the cause of action are situated within the same territorial jurisdiction, the High Court of that territory derives jurisdiction concurrently under both Article 226(1) and Article 226(2).
The Court further explained that in a situation where the seat of the Government or authority is located in one State, while the cause of action arises wholly or in part in another, both High Courts would have jurisdiction. In such a case, the High Court within whose territory the authority is situated would exercise jurisdiction under Article 226(1), whereas the High Court within whose territory the cause of action arises would exercise jurisdiction under Article 226(2). Conversely, where the seat of the Government or authority lies outside the territorial limits of a High Court, but the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction, that High Court would nonetheless be competent to entertain the writ petition solely by virtue of Article 226(2). Similarly, if both the seat of the authority and the cause of action are located outside a particular High Court’s territory, that High Court would lack jurisdiction altogether.
This exposition makes it abundantly clear that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is not always exclusive and may, in appropriate cases, be concurrent, thereby enabling more than one High Court to entertain a writ petition depending upon the situs of the authority and the place where the cause of action arises.
V. Conclusion: The Governing Principle
In sum, the constitutional and judicial position is now well-settled. A High Court is competent to entertain and decide a writ petition under Article 226 if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial jurisdiction, regardless of the location of the authority or person against whom the writ is sought. Article 226(2) thus operates as a jurisdiction-expanding provision, reinforcing access to constitutional remedies while aligning jurisdictional principles with practical realities.
By harmonising constitutional text, legislative intent, and judicial interpretation, Jayaswals Neco stands as a pivotal authority in defining the territorial contours of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.