Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUBMITTED BY
Saurabh Soundankar
Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Types of Jurisdiction
Following are some of the categories of the jurisdiction of a court:
Conditions
Following are the two conditions which are needed to be satisfied by a civil court to try a suit:
a) The suit must be of civil nature; and
b) The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred.
1
Black's Law Dictionary, https://thelawdictionary.org/civil/
b) Cognizance not barred
i. Suits expressly barred: - A suit is “expressly barred” when it is barred by any
enactment for the time being in force. Competent legislation exercising power
within its legislative field and not contravening any provision of the Constitution,
can bar jurisdiction of civil court in relation to particular class of suits within suits
of civil nature. Such clauses are otherwise known as exclusion of jurisdiction clause
or ouster clause.
In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam2 it was held that
matters falling within exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or under the Code
of Criminal Procedure or matters dealt with by special tribunals under respective
statutes, e.g. by Election Tribunal, Income Tax Tribunal, Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal etc. are expressly barred from cognizance of civil courts. But if the remedy
available under such statute is not adequate and all questions cannot be decided by
special tribunal, the jurisdiction of civil court is not barred. Therefore, scope and
extent of remedies available in tribunal proceedings should be carefully analysed
for choosing the redressal forum.
ii. Suits impliedly barred: - A suit is impliedly barred when it is barred by general
principles of law and equity. When a specific adequate remedy is given by a statute
or statute provides detailed machinery for enforcement of rights, it thereby deprives
the person who insists upon any other remedy than given by statute.
Cognizance of certain suits of civil nature is barred on the ground of public policy.
In the case of Sitaram Kashiram Konda v. Pigment Cakes Mfg. Co3 it was held that
the principle underlying is that a court ought not to countenance matters which are
injurious to and against the public weal. Thus, no suit shall lie for enforcement of
right under a contract which is barred by Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
or against any judge for acts done in course of his duties. Civil courts have no
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon questions of purely political nature.
Presumption as to jurisdiction
Every endeavour should be made in favour of presumption of jurisdiction of civil court. The
exclusion jurisdiction of civil court shall not be readily inferred unless the relevant statute
contains any express provision to that effect or leads to necessary and inevitable implication of
that nature.
2
1986 AIR 794
3
1980 AIR 16
Burden of proof
It is well settled that it is the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of civil court to establish
it. It is equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly
construed. Wherever such contention is raised it has to be dealt by keeping in mind the words
used in the statute, scheme of such provisions in the statue and object and purpose of their
enactment.
• “shall be final”
• “shall be final and conclusive”
• “shall not be appealable”
• “shall not be called in question in any court”
• “shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever”
4
1969 AIR 78
(2) “Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought
before Tribunals constituted under that Act.”
Indian judiciary has embraced the basic structure doctrine which provides that certain basic
features of the constitution may not be amended. In the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India5
the honourable Supreme Court regarded judicial review as a basic feature. Observation of the
Court is as follows:
“The power of the judicial review is an integral part of our constitutional system and without
it, there will be no Government of Laws and the rule of law would become a teasing illusion
and a promise of unreality. If there is one feature of our Constitution which, more than any
other, is basic and fundamental to the maintenance of democracy and the rule of law, it is the
power of judicial review and it is unquestionably a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.”
Hence power of judicial review may not be abrogated either through ordinary legislation or
through Constitutional amendment.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India6 court observed that:
(1) The Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High-Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles
226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional.
(2) The Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the “exclusion of
jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A
and 323-B would, to the extent that they exclude the jurisdiction of the High-Courts
(under Articles 226 and 227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) would be ultra-
vires the Constitution.
(3) Jurisdiction conferred upon the HCs and the SC u/A 226 and 32 respectively is a part
of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution.
(4) No Constitutional prohibition on the Tribunals in performing a supplemental role as
opposed to a ‘substitutional’ role.
(5) Tribunals can also examine the Constitutional Validity of various statutes and rules
(para 91) However, Tribunals not competent to examine the validity of the very Act
under which they have been instituted.
(6) However, decisions of the Tribunals are subject to scrutiny by a division- bench of the
respective HC Setting up of nodal agency under the Ministry of Law for overseeing the
work of the Tribunals.
5
AIR 1980 SC 1789
6
AIR 1997 SC 1125
170. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred. —No civil court shall have jurisdiction to
question the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the returning officer
or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with an election.