Challenging Central Law: High Court Jurisdiction

The question of whether a central law can be challenged in a high court is a complex one, with several factors at play. In India, the Law Commission of India's 136th report stated that if a High Court disagrees with the verdict of another High Court on a central law, it should refer the matter to the Supreme Court. However, this has not yet been put into practice. The Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, introduced Article 226A, which stated that a High Court could not consider the constitutional validity of a central law, but this was repealed by the Forty-third Amendment Act, 1977. The Supreme Court has clarified that High Courts can consider constitutional challenges to central laws, and Justice Chandrachud affirmed that High Courts have writ jurisdiction and can decide on the constitutionality of a central law. The normal rule is that a High Court's order applies only within its territorial jurisdiction, but when it comes to a judgment against a central law, the Supreme Court has held that it will affect the territory of India subject to the applicability of the Act.

Can a High Court's order be applied throughout the country?

The general rule is that an order or judgment of a High Court is only binding within its territorial jurisdiction. However, there are instances where High Court orders have been applied throughout the country.

In the case of Dr. T. Rajakumari v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2016), the Madras High Court observed that once a High Court has struck down the provisions of a Central Act, it cannot be selectively applied in other states. This means that the High Court's judgment would apply across the entire country, unless the Supreme Court overturns or stays the judgment.

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that High Courts can consider constitutional challenges against Central legislations. In the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004), the Supreme Court held that an order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act will affect the territory of India, subject to the applicability of the Act.

In certain cases, the High Courts have made observations that their orders are applicable throughout the country. For example, the Madras High Court held that the Delhi High Court's judgment striking down a section of the PNDT Act was applicable throughout India. Similarly, the Kerala High Court held that the Gujarat High Court's decision to strike down Part IXB of the Constitution would have country-wide application.

The Law Commission of India's 136th report states that if a High Court is faced with a problem pertaining to a central law on which another High Court has already made a pronouncement, and the former holds a different view, it should refer the matter to the Supreme Court along with its own reasoned opinion.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court of India is the highest court in the country, and it has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between states or between states and the Centre. In cases where there is a conflict of decisions between different High Courts, the Supreme Court will need to decide on the matter.

What is the process for challenging a central law?

The process for challenging a central law in India involves invoking specific articles of the Constitution, with cases being filed in the High Court or the Supreme Court.

The validity of any executive or legislative action is typically challenged through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in High Courts. In the case of alleged fundamental rights violations, Article 32 is invoked in the Supreme Court. State governments cannot complain about fundamental rights violations, but they can take disputes to the Supreme Court if they feel their legal rights are threatened or violated. This is done under Article 131, which gives the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between states, or between states and the Centre.

In 2020, for example, Kerala and Chhattisgarh filed suits in the Supreme Court under Article 131, challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA). Kerala's suit argued that the CAA and associated rules and orders were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated fundamental rights.

The Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, had inserted Article 226A, which stated that the constitutional validity of central laws was not to be considered in proceedings under Article 226. However, this was repealed by the Forty-third Amendment Act, 1977, thus allowing High Courts to consider constitutional challenges to central laws.

The Law Commission of India's 136th Report acknowledges that a High Court's decision on a central law can be at odds with that of another High Court. In such cases, the report recommends that the former High Court refer the matter to the Supreme Court, along with a reasoned opinion of its own view.

While the Supreme Court has stated that central laws can be challenged in High Courts, the final judgment of a High Court on the constitutionality of a central law would likely need to be decided upon by the Supreme Court, as a High Court's decision is binding within its territorial jurisdiction.

What is the role of the Supreme Court in resolving conflicts?

The Supreme Court is the highest court in a country and is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Its role in resolving conflicts is multifaceted and essential to the functioning of the country's legal system and government.

Firstly, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, meaning it is the first court to try certain cases. This includes suits between two or more states, cases involving violations of fundamental rights, and cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction also extends to disputes between states, or between states and the central government. For example, in India, Kerala and Punjab challenged the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, by filing suits in the Supreme Court, invoking Article 131, which gives the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction in such disputes.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, meaning it can hear cases on appeal. The Court has broad discretion in deciding which cases to hear and can choose to entertain a petition for a writ of certiorari, where a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and agrees to hear about 100-150 of them.

Thirdly, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that each branch of the government recognizes and respects the limits of its power. This is achieved through the Court's power of judicial review, which allows it to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In addition to these specific roles in resolving conflicts, the Supreme Court also has a broader impact on society. Its decisions can shape public policy, protect civil rights and liberties, and set limits on democratic governments. The Supreme Court ensures that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities, thus safeguarding fundamental values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

In summary, the Supreme Court's role in resolving conflicts is multifaceted and far-reaching. It provides a forum for hearing disputes between states and the central government, offers a mechanism for individuals and states to seek justice and protect their rights, and acts as a check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government. By interpreting and applying the law, the Supreme Court helps to shape public policy and ensure that the country's laws and actions are consistent with the Constitution.

How do differing interpretations of central laws impact citizens?

Differing interpretations of central laws by high courts can have a significant impact on citizens. In India, the Law Commission of India has acknowledged the issue of conflicting interpretations of central laws by different high courts, which can cause inconsistencies in citizens' legal rights across states. For instance, in the case of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, differing interpretations of the term "full owner" by high courts resulted in a Hindu widow's inheritance rights varying depending on whether she inherited property in Orissa or Andhra Pradesh.

The Indian Constitution, under Article 215, recognises high courts as courts of record, meaning their decisions are binding on lower courts within their territorial jurisdiction. However, when it comes to central laws, the situation is more complex. While high courts have the power to rule on the constitutionality of central laws, their decisions can be challenged or overturned by the Supreme Court.

The applicability of a high court's decision on a central law across the country is a matter of debate. Some sources suggest that a high court's ruling on the constitutionality of a central law should apply throughout India, as in the case of Dr. T. Rajakumari v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2016), where the Madras Court held that a Delhi High Court judgment striking down a section of the PNDT Act was applicable throughout the country. However, others argue that a high court's decision typically only operates within its territorial jurisdiction, as stated in Article 226(1) of the Constitution.

The lack of uniformity in the interpretation and application of central laws across different states can cause serious inconvenience and impair the quality of substantive or procedural law. It can also lead to inconsistencies in citizens' legal rights, as they may have a legal right in one state but not in another. This issue has been recognised by the Law Commission of India, which has made recommendations to resolve conflicts in high court decisions on central laws.

To address these issues, some legal recourse options have been proposed. The Law Commission of India's 136th report suggested that if a high court disagrees with the decision of another high court on a central law, it should refer the matter to the Supreme Court along with its own reasoned opinion. However, this recommendation has not yet been applied in jurisprudence. In practice, states have directly approached the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutional validity of central laws, as seen in the case of Kerala and Chhattisgarh challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the National Investigation Agency Act, respectively.

What are the implications of a central law being declared unconstitutional?

The implications of a central law being declared unconstitutional by a High Court vary depending on the specific case and the legal system in question. In some countries, like India, the decision of a High Court on the constitutionality of a central law can have significant implications, especially if the law is found to be unconstitutional.

In India, the High Courts have writ jurisdiction, which means they can decide questions of law in a particular case. This includes the power to rule on the constitutionality of central laws and strike down laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. When a High Court declares a central law unconstitutional, it effectively renders that law invalid and unenforceable within its territorial jurisdiction. This means that the law cannot be applied or enforced within the state or region under the High Court's authority.

The impact of a High Court's decision can extend beyond its immediate jurisdiction. In some cases, the judgment of one High Court on the constitutionality of a central law may be adopted or followed by other High Courts, creating a precedent that influences their decisions. This can lead to inconsistencies in the application of laws across different states or regions, as different High Courts may interpret and apply the same central law differently.

To address these inconsistencies, the Law Commission of India has made recommendations. They suggest that if a High Court disagrees with the decision of another High Court on a central law, it should refer the matter to the Supreme Court along with its own reasoned opinion. However, this recommendation has not yet been adopted in practice, and the Supreme Court remains the final arbiter of constitutional questions.

In conclusion, when a central law is declared unconstitutional by a High Court, it has immediate implications within the Court's territorial jurisdiction, and its impact can extend further if other High Courts adopt the decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court may need to intervene to provide a uniform interpretation and application of the law across the entire country.

Frequently asked questions