Writ Jurisdiction of HC not Ousted by Agreement and is Independent of Alternative Remedy:
MAHARASHTRA CHESS ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [29/07/2019]: In the instant case, one of the parties to the proceeding had ousted the jurisdiction of courts outside Chennai. However, one of the parties approached to the Bombay High Court to ventilate his grievance out of breach of contract. In the referred case, the issue involved for consideration was—
- Whether by contractual agreement the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 may be ousted?
- Whether availability of alternative remedy can be ground for restraining the High Court from entertaining the Writ without scrutinising the factual matrix of the case and the application of principle of forum of non-conveniens in appropriate cases?
While determining the above issues, the Division Bench of the Ho’ble SC held that Article 226 is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution and empowers the High Court for judicial review of any act and can neither be confined nor abrogated by act of parties or by any statute. Judicial review under Article 226 is an intrinsic feature of the basic structure of the Constitution and the parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate and vice versa. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others. It is well settled principle of contract law that parties can not by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts and such contract would be hit by Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which prohibits agreement in restraint of legal proceedings.
The Court further held that an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case. However, the High Court should normally not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. The Court further held that mere existence of alternate forum where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction and the Writ Court is supposed to scrutinise the Writ Petition rather than rejecting on the ground of alternative remedy or ouster of jurisdiction through privately negotiated contract/ documents. 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.
While interpreting the spirit of Article 226 the Court travelled through its various judgments [viz. Sangram Singh v Election Tribunal, Kotah [(1955) 2 SCR 1]; A V Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani [(1962) 1 SCR 753]State of Uttar Pradesh v Indian Hume Pipe Co. Limited [(1977) 2 SCC 724]; A B C Laminart (P) Limited v A P Agencies, Salem [(1989) 2 SCC 163]. The Court observed that the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is transcendental, equitable and discretionary and is conferred in aid of justice. Thus, no limitation can be placed on the powers of the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction mandates to uphold the rule of law and are not subject to strict legal principles being equitable and discretionary in nature. The limitation in exercising Writ Jurisdictions are self-imposed and can not be completely excluded by statute or ousted by negotiation under contract by the parties.
https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/40297/40297_2018_10_1502_15424_Judgement_29-Jul-2019.pdf.
