02 September 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent judicial decision of Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College & Hospital v/s Uttrakhand University Of Ayurveda & Others, the High Court addressed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution by Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to allow students from the 2022 batch to sit for their regular and elective examinations, highlighting a critical issue concerning the role of territorial jurisdiction in such cases.

Background:

The petitioner, Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, is a self-financed institution located in the remote hilly districts of Uttarakhand. This Ayurveda medical college offers a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.) course and historically admitted students based on merit lists from qualifying examinations. Since 2021, however, admissions have been mandated to be through the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET), creating significant challenges for local students due to geographical and economic constraints. For the academic year 2022-2023, only four out of sixty seats were filled, resulting in a 93% vacancy rate. The petitioner admitted additional students who had appeared for NEET but failed to qualify, with some of these students eventually passing the exam.

The core grievance of the petitioner was that despite the challenges faced due to the institute's remote location, the Uttarakhand Ayurveda University refused to allow these students to take their examinations. The petitioner argued that this refusal violated the students' fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as it jeopardized their education and the healthcare services in the region.

Jurisdictional Challenge:

A significant issue in this case was the question of territorial jurisdiction. The Union of India, represented by Mr. Farman Ali, Senior Panel Counsel, contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that any remedy against the respondents would fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, given that the petitioner-institute is based in Uttarakhand. In rebuttal, the petitioner’s Senior Counsel contended that since the grievance involved the Union of India/Ministry of AYUSH, whose head office is located in Delhi, the writ petition was maintainable in the current court.

Court's Analysis and Decision:

The Court carefully considered the arguments and the factual context of the case. It acknowledged that while a portion of the cause of action might be linked to the Ministry of AYUSH's office in Delhi, this alone did not suffice to confer jurisdiction upon the High Court in Delhi. Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., the Court highlighted that mere presence of a part of the cause of action within a court’s territorial jurisdiction does not automatically compel the court to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the doctrine of forum conveniens, which allows a court to refuse jurisdiction if another court is more appropriate for handling the case.

The Court also referenced a prior decision in Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, noting that the situs of a national tribunal or statutory authority does not necessarily determine the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing that the primary grievance was against Uttarakhand Ayurveda University, located in Uttarakhand. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is not solely determined by the location of a respondent's office but by the substantive connection of the dispute to the court’s territory.

The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the appropriate court with the relevant jurisdiction to seek redressal. This decision underscores the importance of considering both the geographical and substantive aspects when determining the jurisdiction for judicial review under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

  Constitution of India, 1950