Evan V

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday indicated that it would not encourage the practice of transferring pending matters from multiple High Courts to a single High Court solely to achieve consolidation, warning that such an approach could foster forum shopping and create institutional inequities.

A Three Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing transfer petitions filed by turf clubs seeking to bring together writ petitions pending in different High Courts challenging the Goods and Services Tax levy on horse racing and allied “actionable claim” transactions.

Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that amendments to the GST framework have expanded the tax net in relation to horse racing and other actionable claims, and that entities providing a platform for such actionable claims are being treated as “suppliers” for the purpose of tax liability. He informed the Bench that constitutional challenges to the levy are pending before four High Courts and sought transfer to a single High Court for a consolidated hearing.

Also Read: Successive FIRs To Keep Accused In Custody Despite Bail Abuse Of Process; Article 32 Writ Allowed: Supreme Court

Datar argued that conflicting outcomes from different High Courts on a central statute could lead to avoidable complications. He also submitted that the petitioners were not insisting on any particular forum and that the Supreme Court could choose the transferee High Court.

The Bench, however, expressed disinclination to entertain the request. The Chief Justice cautioned that concentrating cases in a single forum can encourage strategic litigation. “This can lead to a lot of malpractices,” the CJI observed, in the context of concerns about forum shopping.

The Court further noted that inconvenience to counsel cannot, by itself, justify transfer, and also referred to the availability of virtual hearing facilities to mitigate logistical difficulties.

Addressing the argument about divergent High Court views, the Bench indicated that such divergence is not inherently problematic in a federal judicial system, noting: “We proceed on the premise that there will be difference of opinion among the High Courts. Let it be. The ultimate arbiter will be the Supreme Court,” the CJI said.

Also Read: “Direct Impact On Retired Employee’s Right To A Dignified Life Under Article 21”: AP High Court Flags Staggering Pendency Of Disciplinary Cases, Issues Continuing Mandamus To State

In response to the submission that the Supreme Court has, in other contexts, consolidated challenges in a single High Court, the Bench remained unconvinced and expressed an institutional concern about the message such transfers may send.

“This will give a wrong impression that certain High Courts are a mini Supreme Court,” the CJI remarked. Justice Bagchi added, “All High Courts are equal. Some High Courts cannot be more equal than other High Courts. We do not encourage that,” while Justice Nagarathna noted that the High Courts have adequate institutional capacity and judicial talent to decide such issues.

Following the Court’s observations, Datar sought permission to withdraw the transfer petitions, clarifying that the request was not intended as forum shopping and was premised on earlier instances in which similar consolidations had been permitted.

Case Title: Royal Calcutta Turf Club v Union of India

Case No: D No. 30664/2024

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi