Cause of Action does not travel with the Petitioner: HC says Tribunal Orders challengeable only before concerned High Court

In a significant procedural challenge concerning territorial jurisdiction over tribunal orders, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to address whether it could examine a decision passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal’s Principal Bench in New Delhi, amid allegations by discharged service personnel that their removal on academic grounds was unjust and deserved reinstatement with full benefits. At stake was a crucial constitutional question: can litigants invoke jurisdiction based on residence or cause of action when the impugned order originates from a tribunal situated outside the State?

The controversy began when the petitioners, aggrieved by their discharge from service, approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking reinstatement, only to have their pleas dismissed by the Principal Bench in New Delhi. Challenging this setback, they moved the Allahabad High Court, arguing that under procedural rules, jurisdiction could be invoked based on their place of residence or where the cause of action arose. Counsel for the respondents, however, pushed back, warning of parallel proceedings and conflicting rulings, especially since similar challenges were already pending before the Delhi High Court, thereby turning the dispute into a classic jurisdictional tug-of-war.

The Court decisively cut through the confusion, anchoring its reasoning in binding Supreme Court precedent. Relying on the ruling in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay and the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar, the Bench underscored that tribunal decisions are subject to scrutiny only by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal is located. Delivering a clear judicial message, the Court noted, “all decisions of these Tribunals will… be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls,” and cautioned that entertaining such petitions elsewhere would lead to “indefiniteness and multiplicity.”

Consequently, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioners free to approach the appropriate forum.

Case Title: Sachin Kumar and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors

Case No.: WRIT - A No. - 2923 of 2026

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kshitij Shailendra

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Bansh Raj Mishra, Adv. Indrajeet Kumar

Advocate for the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Gopal Verma

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com