High Courts common for States can order inter-State transfer of civil proceedings: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a High Court can order for the inter-State transfer of civil proceedings, provided such Court has jurisdiction over the States concerned. [Shah Newaz Khan and ors vs State of Nagaland and ors].A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Dipankar Datta found that the power under Section 24, CPC (general power of transfer and withdrawal), can be exercised by a High Court for the inter-State transfer of a civil suit, appeal or other proceedings, if it is the common High Court for all the States concerned.."The power under section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High Court even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court for two or more States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the Civil Courts (transferor and transferee) are subordinate to it," the judgment stated..The bench clarified that the Supreme Court's powers under Section 25, CPC to transfer civil proceedings across States applies to a scenario where each State concerned has its own High Court in terms of Article 214 of the Constitution..Pertinently, the Court said that this power under Section 25 of CPC does not apply to a case where both States have a common High Court under Article 231 of the Constitution. Further, the Court was also prompted to remark that the High Court has wide-ranging powers which ought to be acknowledged by all. ."It is time all concerned realize that a High Court ~ howsoever big or small, old or new ~ is as much a Constitutional Court as this Court is and enjoys wide ranging powers vested in it by law. No doubt, the power under section 25 is a special power, but the common High Courts of the country ought not to read section 24 of the CPC in a manner as if the power of the Supreme Court under section 25 to order an inter-State transfer is available to be exclusively exercised by it in all cases of inter-State transfer," the Court said..The case before the top Court involved a challenge to a High Court order refusing to transfer a civil case. The appellants had moved the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court refused to transfer their civil suit from Dimapur in Nagaland to Guwahati in Assam. The Gauhati High Court, which is the common High Court for the States of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, had, among other precedents, relied on the apex Court decision in Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree, to reject the transfer plea. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court..To decide on the matter, the bench deliberated on whether the Supreme Court is the sole repository of power in terms of Section 25 of CPC when it comes to the inter-State transfer of civil cases, or if a High Court common to more than one State has such transfer powers as well under Section 24 of CPC. .The Court noted that Section 24 confers on High Courts a general power of transfer and withdrawal which could be invoked at any stage, either suo motu or on an application by the parties. The Court further found that Section 25 does not bar a common High Court like the Gauhati High Court, from entertaining an application under Section 24 even for an inter-State transfer, if the High Court exercises jurisdiction over the States concerned..The Court explained that the bar under Section 25 was inserted to ensure that High Courts do not transfer proceedings to a State over which the Court has no jurisdiction. Section 25 is attracted only when the transfer involves two or more States which are subject to the jurisdiction of different High Courts, the Court observed. .The Court added that a narrow interpretation of Section 25 would place a heavy burden and obstacles in the way of litigants in far-flung areas of northeast India. The Supreme Court has a moral responsibility not to read the provision in such a pedantic manner which could thwart "access to justice", the bench added. .Hence, the Supreme Court directed the Gauhati High Court to decide the appellants' transfer application under Section 24 afresh and on its own merits..Senior Advocate Parthiv K Goswami with advocates Ragini Pandey, Atiga Singh, and Diksha Rai appeared for the appellants.Senior Advocate KN Balgopal with advocates K Enatoli Sema, Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, and Prang Newmai appeared for the State of Nagaland.Advocates Vivek Narayan Sharma, Mahima Bhardwaj, Laksha Bhavnani, Pranshu Kausha, Shubham Awasthi, Rajeev Kumar Jha, and Ram Kumar appeared for the remaining respondents..[Read Judgment]