Can a Private Agreement oust Article 226 jurisdiction of a High Court? Supreme Court answers

A private agreement ousting the jurisdiction of courts in a particular place in not a good ground for a High Court to abdicate its responsibility under Article 226, Supreme Court has clarified..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee in an appeal against a verdict of the Bombay High Court..The facts of the case are as follows. A private agreement entered into between the Appellant and the second Respondent in the form of the Constitution and Bye-Laws conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at Chennai..The relevant clause in the agreement read:.“21. Legal Course (i) The Federation shall sue and or be sued only in the name of the Hon. Secretary of the Federation. (ii) Any Suits/Legal actions against the Federation shall be instituted only in the Courts at Chennai, where the Registered Office of All India Chess Federation is situated or at the place where the Secretariat of the All India Chess Federation is functioning”.The second Respondent, the All India Chess Federation is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It is a central governing authority for chess in India. The Appellant is a society registered under the Act of 1860 and was an affiliated member of the second Respondent since 1978..On December 25, 2016, the Central Council of the second Respondent passed a resolution to disaffiliate the Appellant. After the institution of the writ proceedings, the third Respondent was affiliated by the second Respondent in place of the Appellant..The Appellant had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution impleading, inter alia the second Respondent. The second Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Bombay High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on the ground that Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye-Laws conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Chennai in disputes involving the second Respondent and any other party to the Constitution and Bye-Laws, including the Appellant..The Bombay High Court held that Clause 21 ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts except the courts at Chennai..This led to the appeal in Supreme Court..The Supreme Court at the outset noted the settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act..However, the Court also noted that where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action, it stated..Thus, clause 21 of the contract in the instant case would not fall foul of Contract law, the Court ruled..It then proceeded to discuss the scope of Article 226..The role of the High Court under the Constitution is crucial to ensuring the rule of law throughout its territorial jurisdiction, the Court stated. In order to achieve these transcendental goals, the powers of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction are necessarily broad. They are conferred in aid of justice. Thus, the powers of the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot be circumscribed by strict legal principles, the Court held..However, the Court also observed that while the powers the High Court may exercise under its writ jurisdiction are not subject to strict legal principles, two clear principles emerge when a High Court’s writ jurisdiction may be engaged..First, the decision of the High Court to entertain or not entertain a particular action under its writ jurisdiction is fundamentally discretionary. Secondly, limitations placed on the court’s decision to exercise or refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction are self-imposed..Thus, the Court held that it is a well-settled principle that the writ jurisdiction of a High Court cannot be completely excluded by statute..“If a High Court is tasked with being the final recourse to upholding the rule of law within its territorial jurisdiction, it must necessarily have the power to examine any case before it and make a determination of whether or not its writ jurisdiction is engaged.”.The Court then proceeded to discuss the principle that the writ jurisdiction of a High Court can be exercised where no adequate alternative remedies exist..It held that mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. Thus, the mere fact that the High Court at Madras is capable of granting adequate relief to the Appellant does not create a legal bar on the Bombay High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction in the present matter..“Even the existence of an alternate adequate remedy is merely an additional factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise its writ jurisdiction. This is in marked contradistinction to the jurisdiction of a civil court which is governed by statute.”.Regarding whether a private contract is a legal bar on a High Court exercising its jurisdiction, the Court once again made it clear that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is fundamentally discretionary..In exercising its discretion to entertain a particular case under Article 226, a High Court may take into consideration various factors including the nature of the injustice that is alleged by the petitioner, whether or not an alternate remedy exists, or whether the facts raise a question of constitutional interpretation. These factors are not exhaustive..A High Court must take a holistic view of the facts and make a determination on the facts and circumstances of each unique case, the Court held..Coming to the instant case, the Court stated that the Bombay High Court relied solely on Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye-Laws to hold that its own writ jurisdiction is ousted. The Bombay High Court thus failed to examine the case holistically and make a considered determination as to whether or not it should, in its discretion, exercise its powers under Article 226..The scrutiny to be applied to every writ petition under Article 226 by the High Court is a crucial safeguard of the rule of law under the Constitution in the relevant territorial jurisdiction. It is not open to a High Court to abdicate this responsibility merely due to the existence of a privately negotiated document ousting its jurisdiction, the Court made it clear..It, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and restored the matter to Bombay High Court for being considered afresh..[Read Judgment]