9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. Interpretation of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India regarding cause of action. Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court to Entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition: The petitioner challenged the detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner and the detenue were residents of Rajasthan but were detained in Mumbai. The petitioner claimed that the detention order was served in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, and thus filed the petition in the Rajasthan High Court. The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing that the activities and detention order were centered in Mumbai, thus the Rajasthan High Court lacked jurisdiction. They contended that the mere service of the detention order in Jodhpur did not confer jurisdiction on the Rajasthan High Court. The court examined whether the factual detention of the detenue in Rajasthan, even if for the purpose of being taken to Pune, provided a cause of action for the Rajasthan High Court to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. Interpretation of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India Regarding Cause of Action: Article 226(2) allows a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territorial limits. The court analyzed whether the detention in Rajasthan constituted a part of the cause of action. The court referred to several precedents: - P. Subramani v. State of Karnataka (1990 Cri LJ 1106): The Madras High Court held that the High Court of the state where the detention physically occurs has jurisdiction. - Smt. Manjulaben v. C.T.A. Pillay (1976 Cri LJ 889): The Gujarat High Court ruled that initial detention within the state provided part of the cause of action. - Ramchand Santumal Bhatia v. Tarun Roy (1988 Cri LJ 641): The Bombay High Court decided that the place where the detenue is taken into custody and served with the detention order confers jurisdiction. The court also discussed the Division Bench decision in Sewa Ram v. Union of India (D.B. Civil Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1243/97), which held that the passing of the detention order supplied the whole cause of action, and subsequent arrest did not confer jurisdiction. The court disagreed with the narrow interpretation in Sewa Ram's case, emphasizing that factual detention at a particular place does supply a part of the cause of action, thus giving the High Court jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court concluded that the service and execution of the detention order in Rajasthan provided part of the cause of action, thus conferring jurisdiction on the Rajasthan High Court. The court clarified that while it had jurisdiction, it could exercise discretion to decide whether to entertain the petition based on expediency or other grounds. The reference was answered accordingly, affirming that the Rajasthan High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition. The case was sent back to the concerned Division Bench for further proceedings.
|
