No Jurisdiction Without Territorial Nexus | High Court Dismisses Plea Against Punjab Officials For Lack Of Cause Of Action Within J&K | Article 226 Not A Free Pass To Any Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, dismissed a writ petition seeking relief against authorities of the State of Punjab, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court recorded that the petitioner had failed to plead any cause of action arising within its jurisdiction and directed dismissal of the writ without examining the merits of the challenge to the impugned notices.
The petitioner approached the High Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashment of certain notices issued by officials of the State of Punjab. The respondents named in the writ petition were the State of Punjab through its Chief Secretary and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Security, Jalandhar. These respondents, however, were located entirely outside the territorial limits of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Despite the nature of the relief sought, the writ petition did not contain any averment suggesting that the cause of action, wholly or partly, had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. There was no assertion or factual basis set out in the pleadings to support an inference that the High Court had the authority to entertain the petition. The omission to incorporate any jurisdictional pleading became central to the adjudication of maintainability.
The Court noted that the petitioner did not even allege that either respondent was a functionary within the territorial reach of the High Court. There was no claim or factual linkage to indicate that the issuance of the impugned notices had any nexus to events or consequences within Jammu and Kashmir or Ladakh. Thus, there was no material placed on record or pleaded that could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Article 226.
When the maintainability issue was raised, counsel for the petitioner argued that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not constrained by any formal rules of pleading. He relied upon Rule 2 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1997, and submitted that there was no mandatory requirement for a petitioner to plead cause of action-related facts in order to establish territorial jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the absence of such averments should not defeat the exercise of constitutional powers under Article 226.
The Court, however, rejected this line of reasoning. It examined the petition in light of constitutional provisions and observed that the petitioner’s interpretation of the Writ Proceedings Rules was too narrow and failed to account for the constitutional mandate embedded in Article 226. The Court clarified that the rules governing writ proceedings must be understood in the context of the overarching constitutional framework and not the other way around.
In conclusion, the petition was held to be legally untenable for want of territorial jurisdiction, as neither the respondents were located within the territory nor was there any claimed cause of action within the Court’s domain.
The Court recorded that Article 226(1) of the Constitution explicitly limits the High Court’s writ jurisdiction to persons or authorities situated within its territorial domain. It noted that a constitutional court’s authority to issue directions, orders, or writs under Article 226 arises only when the person or entity is located within the region over which the Court exercises jurisdiction.
It further observed that, in cases involving respondents situated outside its jurisdiction, it is imperative for the petitioner to specifically plead how the High Court’s territorial writ jurisdiction is attracted. The failure to do so deprives the Court of any constitutional basis to entertain the petition.
Referring to the petition at hand, the Court stated that there was a complete absence of any pleading regarding jurisdiction. The petitioner did not assert any facts suggesting that the cause of action arose, in whole or in part, within the territories of Jammu and Kashmir or Ladakh. Consequently, the Court found no ground to assume jurisdiction over the matter.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1997 obviated the need to plead cause of action. It described this interpretation as “pedantic,” noting that the petitioner’s reading subordinated the constitutional scheme of Article 226 to procedural rules. The Court stated that such a view is legally untenable and undermines the express language of the Constitution.
The Court held that the power under Article 226 must be exercised with due regard to its territorial limitations. If the respondents and the subject matter are wholly outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, then it is an unavoidable obligation for the petitioner to plead how and why the High Court’s jurisdiction is being invoked. The absence of such a plea results in the writ petition being prima facie non-maintainable.
As the petition lacked the foundational basis of territorial jurisdiction, the Court found no occasion to examine the impugned notices or to enter into the merits of the petitioner’s challenge.
The Court directed that the writ petition be dismissed. It also noted that the dismissal would not affect the maintainability of any other pending matter initiated by the petitioner.
In particular, the Court clarified that “the dismissal of writ petition shall not be read as prejudicial to the pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing WP(Crl) No. 8/2025 which is said to have been filed as a matter of subsequent development on account of registration of FIR No.
275/2024 dated 24.11.2024 registered by the Police Station, Navi Baradari, CP Jalandhar, State of Punjab.” No further directions or reliefs were issued by the Court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Thakur Ashwani Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case Number: WP(Crl) No. 68/2024
Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti
[Read/Download order]
