Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India

Introduction

Can the Chief Justice of a High Court, through an administrative order, determine where the cause of action in a writ petition shall be deemed to have arisen for deciding whether the case should be heard at the principal seat or at a permanent bench?

The Supreme Court considered this question in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 294; AIR 2001 SC 416. The case is an important authority on cause of action, territorial jurisdiction under Article 226, jurisdiction of High Court benches, administrative powers of the Chief Justice, States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and judicial determination of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice does not have the power to artificially define or deem where a cause of action has arisen merely through an administrative order. Whether a case arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular bench must be determined judicially on the facts of each individual case.

Case Details

Case Name

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment

15 December 2000

Citation

(2001) 2 SCC 294; AIR 2001 SC 416

Bench

R.C. Lahoti and S.V. Patil, JJ.

Subject Matter

Cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, Article 226, permanent bench, principal seat, administrative powers of Chief Justice and States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Background of the Rajasthan High Court

The State of Rajasthan came into existence on 1 November 1956 under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Under Section 49 of the Act, a High Court was established for the new State of Rajasthan.

The President, exercising powers under Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, directed Jodhpur to be the principal seat of the Rajasthan High Court.

A permanent bench was subsequently established at Jaipur through the High Court of Rajasthan Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur Order, 1976.

The Presidential Order came into force on 31 January 1977.

Establishment of Jaipur Bench

The Presidential Order provided that a permanent bench of the Rajasthan High Court would be established at Jaipur.

The Jaipur Bench was given jurisdiction over cases arising in specified districts, including:

• Ajmer
• Alwar
• Bharatpur
• Bundi
• Jaipur
• Jhalawar
• Jhunjhunu
• Kota
• Sawai Madhopur
• Sikar
• Tonk

The Chief Justice was given limited discretion to direct that a particular case or class of cases arising in those districts could be heard at Jodhpur.

Thus, the Presidential Order effectively created a territorial division between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent bench at Jaipur.

Order of the Chief Justice

On 23 December 1976, the Acting Chief Justice issued an order distributing cases between Jodhpur and Jaipur.

The order stated that cases arising from specified districts would be dealt with at the corresponding seat.

An explanation was subsequently inserted on 12 January 1977.

The explanation attempted to define when a writ case would be deemed to arise in a particular district.

It provided that a writ case would be deemed to arise in the district where the cause of action for issuing the first order in the case had arisen.

Challenge to the Explanation

The Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association challenged the validity of this explanation.

The principal argument was that the Chief Justice did not possess the legal authority to determine where the cause of action in a writ petition would be deemed to have arisen.

According to the challenge, the Chief Justice could distribute judicial work administratively but could not create a legal rule determining territorial jurisdiction.

Decision of the High Court

The Rajasthan High Court accepted the challenge.

It held that the explanation inserted by the Acting Chief Justice was beyond the authority conferred by the relevant statutory provisions.

The explanation was therefore directed to be struck down.

The Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association appealed to the Supreme Court.

Main Issue Before the Supreme Court

The principal issue was:

Whether the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court had the power to define or artificially determine where the cause of action in a writ petition would be deemed to have arisen for deciding the territorial jurisdiction of the Jodhpur principal seat and Jaipur permanent bench.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the High Court’s decision striking down the explanation inserted by the Acting Chief Justice.

The Court held that the Chief Justice did not have the power to create an artificial or deeming definition of cause of action for determining territorial jurisdiction.

Territorial Jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench

The Supreme Court explained that the Presidential Order had already defined the territorial jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench.

The jurisdiction was based upon the districts specified in the Presidential Order.

Therefore, the Chief Justice could not subsequently alter that territorial division through an administrative order.

Power of the President

The Supreme Court examined Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

The Court noted that Section 51 empowered the President to establish a permanent bench and define its territorial jurisdiction.

The establishment of the Jaipur Bench therefore resulted in a territorial bifurcation of the Rajasthan High Court between Jodhpur and Jaipur.

Once that territorial division was established, the Chief Justice could not artificially take jurisdiction from one seat and confer it upon another.

Administrative Power of Chief Justice

The Court considered Section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.

Section 44(2) made the Chief Justice responsible for the distribution and conduct of the business of the High Court and for determining which judges would sit singly or in benches.

The Supreme Court explained that this power essentially amounts to the power to frame the roster.

The power to frame a roster is an administrative power.

It allows the Chief Justice to distribute judicial work.

However, it does not permit the Chief Justice to create a substantive legal rule determining territorial jurisdiction.

Administrative Power Is Different From Judicial Power

This distinction is one of the most important principles in the case.

The Chief Justice can administratively decide:

• which judges will hear particular categories of cases;
• which matters will be listed before particular benches; and
• how the judicial workload will be distributed.

However, the Chief Justice cannot administratively decide a legal question concerning the existence of territorial jurisdiction in an individual case.

That question must be decided judicially.

Roster Power

The Supreme Court described the power under Section 44(2) as the power to frame a roster.

The roster determines how the judicial business of the High Court will be distributed.

However, the roster cannot alter the legal jurisdiction of the High Court or its benches.

Therefore:

Roster Power → Administrative

Territorial Jurisdiction → Judicial determination

Cause of Action

The Supreme Court gave an important explanation of the expression cause of action.

In the restricted sense, cause of action refers to the circumstances constituting the infringement of a right or the immediate occasion for the action.

In the wider sense, it includes the necessary conditions for maintaining the proceeding, including the right and its infringement.

Judicial Meaning of Cause of Action

The Court explained that cause of action consists of every fact which the plaintiff would be required to prove, if denied, in order to establish the right to a judgment.

However, cause of action does not include every piece of evidence required to prove those facts.

Thus:

Material Facts → Cause of Action

Evidence → Proof of Cause of Action

The distinction is important for determining territorial jurisdiction.

Cause of Action Under Article 226

Article 226 permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or partly within its territory.

Therefore, the question of where the cause of action arises is fundamental to determining which bench can hear a writ petition.

The Supreme Court held that this question must be determined according to the facts of the individual case.

Part of Cause of Action

The Court relied upon the earlier judgment in Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

The principle is that where a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular bench, that bench may have jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding under Article 226.

The litigant may therefore have a choice where parts of the cause of action arise in different territorial jurisdictions.

Dominus Litis

The Supreme Court referred to the principle that the litigant is dominus litis, meaning the master of the litigation.

Where part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of more than one competent forum, the litigant may have the right to choose the appropriate forum.

However, this choice exists only because the relevant court already possesses jurisdiction under law.

The litigant does not create jurisdiction merely by selecting a particular court.

Cause of Action Cannot Be Artificially Created

The central principle of the judgment is that jurisdiction cannot be created through an artificial deeming provision made by the Chief Justice.

The actual facts of the case determine where the cause of action arose.

Therefore, an administrative order cannot replace the judicial examination of the facts.

Judicial Determination Is Necessary

Suppose a writ petition concerns an order passed by an authority in Jaipur, but other material events occurred in Jodhpur.

The question of which bench has jurisdiction must be determined by examining the actual cause of action.

It cannot be conclusively predetermined by an administrative explanation stating that every such case will be deemed to arise at a particular place.

Permanent Bench and Principal Seat

The Supreme Court recognised that the establishment of a permanent bench creates a territorial division.

The Jaipur Bench has jurisdiction over cases arising within the districts assigned to it.

The Jodhpur seat retains jurisdiction over cases arising in the districts assigned to it, subject to the power expressly provided in the Presidential Order.

Therefore, the Chief Justice cannot independently change the territorial allocation.

Article 226 and Territorial Jurisdiction

Article 226 is particularly important because the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is not limited merely to the location of the respondent.

The cause of action test is also relevant.

Where the cause of action arises wholly or partly within the territory of a High Court, Article 226 may permit the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction.

The same principle becomes relevant when deciding between the principal seat and a permanent bench.

Important Principle

The case establishes:

Cause of Action → Determines Territorial Jurisdiction

But:

Administrative Order → Cannot Artificially Define Cause of Action

Relationship With Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal is one of the most important cases to read with this judgment.

In Nasiruddin, the Supreme Court examined the territorial jurisdiction between the Allahabad High Court and the Lucknow Bench.

The Court held that where the cause of action arises wholly or partly within the relevant territorial area, jurisdiction may arise there.

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association applied the same principle to the Jodhpur and Jaipur territorial division.

Relationship With A.B.C. Laminart

The principle also connects with A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies.

A.B.C. Laminart deals with territorial jurisdiction in civil suits and explains the importance of the place where the cause of action wholly or partly arises.

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association applies the cause of action principle specifically to the territorial jurisdiction of High Court benches under Article 226.

Relationship With Bloom Dekor

In Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai, the Supreme Court explained cause of action in the context of territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC.

Both cases emphasise that jurisdiction must be based on legally recognised connecting factors.

The important distinction is:

Bloom Dekor → Civil court territorial jurisdiction

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association → High Court bench jurisdiction under Article 226

Chief Justice Cannot Alter Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court made it clear that the Chief Justice’s administrative authority cannot be used to alter the jurisdiction created by the Presidential Order.

The Chief Justice cannot:

• redefine cause of action;
• create an artificial jurisdictional test;
• take territorial jurisdiction from one bench; or
• confer such jurisdiction upon another bench through an administrative order.

Judicial Versus Administrative Function

The case is particularly important for understanding the distinction between administrative and judicial functions of the Chief Justice.

Administrative Function

Distribution of cases and framing of roster.

Judicial Function

Determining whether a particular case falls within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular bench.

The latter must be decided by the judge or bench hearing the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India is that the Chief Justice of a High Court does not possess the power to artificially define or deem where the cause of action has arisen for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a permanent bench or principal seat. The territorial jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench was established by the Presidential Order under Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Whether an individual case arises within that territory must be determined judicially on the facts of that case. The administrative power to frame a roster does not include the power to alter or determine territorial jurisdiction.

Legal Principles Established

1. Cause of Action Determines Jurisdiction

The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court bench depends upon where the cause of action arises.

2. Part of Cause of Action Is Sufficient

Where part of the cause of action arises within the relevant territory, Article 226 jurisdiction may be attracted.

3. Chief Justice Cannot Create Jurisdiction

Administrative authority cannot be used to artificially create territorial jurisdiction.

4. Roster Power Is Administrative

The Chief Justice can distribute judicial work but cannot alter legal jurisdiction.

5. Jurisdiction Must Be Decided Judicially

Whether a particular case arises within the territory of a bench is a question for judicial determination.

6. Permanent Bench Creates Territorial Division

The establishment of a permanent bench under Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act creates a territorial division of the High Court.

7. Presidential Order Controls Territorial Allocation

The territorial jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench flowed from the Presidential Order and could not be altered through an administrative explanation.

8. Artificial Deeming Tests Are Impermissible

An administrative authority cannot create an artificial test for determining where cause of action has arisen.

Important Examination Question

Can the Chief Justice determine where cause of action has arisen?

No.

The question whether cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of a particular bench must be decided judicially in the individual case.

Important Examination Question

What is the difference between roster power and territorial jurisdiction?

Roster power concerns the administrative distribution of judicial work.

Territorial jurisdiction concerns the legal authority of a court or bench to hear a matter.

The former does not permit the Chief Justice to alter the latter.

Important Examination Question

What constitutes cause of action?

Cause of action consists of the material facts which must be proved by the plaintiff or petitioner to establish the right to relief.

Important Examination Question

Can part of the cause of action confer jurisdiction under Article 226?

Yes.

Where part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise jurisdiction, subject to the constitutional and legal requirements governing the proceeding.

ALSO READ: Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai

Examination Formula

For Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, remember:

Cause of Action → Territorial Jurisdiction

Chief Justice → Roster Power

Roster Power ≠ Jurisdictional Power

Jurisdiction → Judicial Determination

Artificial Cause of Action → Not Permitted

Key Takeaways

1. Territorial jurisdiction must be based on law.
2. Cause of action is central to determining jurisdiction under Article 226.
3. Part of the cause of action may be sufficient to attract jurisdiction.
4. The Chief Justice cannot artificially define where cause of action has arisen.
5. The Chief Justice’s power to frame the roster is administrative.
6. Administrative control cannot alter territorial jurisdiction.
7. The jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench was created through the Presidential Order.
8. The territorial division between Jodhpur and Jaipur must be respected.
9. The jurisdiction of an individual bench must be determined judicially.
10. The case is an important authority on Article 226 and territorial jurisdiction.

Law Student and Judiciary Relevance

For examinations, remember:

Article 226 → Writ Jurisdiction

Cause of Action → Territorial Jurisdiction

Part Cause of Action → May Confer Jurisdiction

Chief Justice → Administrative Roster

Judge → Judicial Determination of Jurisdiction

Presidential Order → Territorial Division

The most important proposition is:

The Chief Justice can distribute judicial business, but cannot administratively determine or artificially create the cause of action for deciding territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India is a leading Supreme Court judgment on the territorial jurisdiction of High Court benches.

The Court protected the distinction between the administrative powers of the Chief Justice and the judicial power to determine jurisdiction. The establishment of the Jaipur permanent bench had created a territorial division under the Presidential Order issued pursuant to the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. That territorial division could not be altered through an administrative explanation issued by the Chief Justice.

The judgment also gives an important explanation of cause of action. Whether a case arises within the territory of a particular bench must depend upon the actual material facts of that case and must be determined judicially.

The central lesson is:

Jurisdiction follows the cause of action, and the existence of that cause of action must be determined by the court, not artificially by an administrative order.

For a law student, remember:

Cause of Action → Jurisdiction

Roster → Administration

Jurisdiction → Judicial Decision