Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose from a dispute between the Maharashtra Chess Association (Appellant) and the All India Chess Federation (second Respondent), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Appellant was an affiliated member of the second Respondent since 1978. On 25 December 2016, the Central Council of the second Respondent passed a resolution to disaffiliate the Appellant. Subsequently, the third Respondent was affiliated in place of the Appellant. The Appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the disaffiliation. The second Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction because Clause 21 of its Constitution and Bye Laws conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Chennai. The Bombay High Court upheld the objection, holding that Clause 21 ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts except those at Chennai. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The legal issue was whether a private agreement could oust the writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226. The Appellant argued that Article 226 provides a constitutional remedy that cannot be ousted by private agreement, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The Union of India supported this view, submitting that judicial review is part of the basic structure. The second Respondent contended that the High Court had merely declined to exercise its discretion. The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that it is a constitutional remedy that cannot be circumscribed by private agreements. The Court distinguished the principle in A B C Laminart (P) Limited v A P Agencies, Salem, which allows parties to choose one of several competent courts for civil suits, holding that this principle does not apply to writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the High Court's discretion under Article 226 cannot be fettered by contractual clauses, and that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, uninfluenced by Clause 21.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Ouster by Private Agreement - The issue was whether Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the All India Chess Federation, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Chennai, could oust the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226. The Supreme Court held that a private agreement cannot oust the constitutional remedy under Article 226, as the writ jurisdiction is a fundamental feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated by contract. The High Court's discretion to entertain a writ petition cannot be fettered by a private agreement. (Paras 1-13) B) Contract Law - Restraint of Legal Proceedings - Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - The principle in A B C Laminart (P) Limited v A P Agencies, Salem that parties can agree to submit to one of several competent courts applies only to civil suits, not to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Supreme Court clarified that while such clauses are valid for civil actions, they cannot oust the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction. (Paras 9-10) C) Constitutional Law - Basic Structure - Judicial Review - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be confined or abrogated by private agreement. The High Court's power under Article 226 is discretionary and cannot be limited by contractual clauses. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a private agreement (Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the All India Chess Federation) conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Chennai can oust the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court, and remitted the matter back to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on merits, uninfluenced by Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted by private agreement
- Parties cannot contractually exclude constitutional remedies
- High Court's discretion under Article 226 is not subject to contractual ouster
- Section 28 of Indian Contract Act
- 1872 applies to civil suits not writ jurisdiction
