1979 (7) TMI 243 - HC - Indian Laws

State Legislature's Amendment of High Court Jurisdiction Upheld

Rajinder Singh Versus Kultar Singh and Ors.

The court upheld the validity of the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Acts, 1977 and 1978, ruling that the State Legislature had the legislative ... - Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to Amend Jurisdiction of High Courts.2. Interpretation of Entries in the Constitution of India.3. Validity of the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Acts, 1977 and 1978.4. Impact of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution.5. Judicial Control of the High Court over Subordinate Courts.Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to Amend Jurisdiction of High Courts:The primary issue was whether the Haryana State Legislature had the competence to legislate on the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Acts, 1977 and 1978. The court held that the State Legislature was competent to legislate on matters relating to the 'administration of justice' under Entry 3 of List II (State List) prior to the 42nd Amendment and under Entry 11-A of List III (Concurrent List) post the 42nd Amendment. The term 'administration of justice' was interpreted in its widest sense to include the power to define, enlarge, alter, amend, and diminish the jurisdiction of courts.2. Interpretation of Entries in the Constitution of India:The court examined various entries in the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. It concluded that while the 'constitution and organisation' of High Courts is a Union subject under Entry 78 of List I, the 'jurisdiction and powers' of High Courts are not explicitly mentioned in this entry. Instead, these are covered under the broader term 'administration of justice' in Entry 3 of List II (now Entry 11-A of List III). The court referred to the judgment in the State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jetha Bhai, AIR 1951 SC 89, to support its interpretation that 'administration of justice' includes jurisdiction and powers of courts.3. Validity of the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Acts, 1977 and 1978:The court upheld the validity of the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Acts, 1977 and 1978. It ruled that these amendments were within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The amendments, which raised the jurisdictional value of appeals and transferred certain pending appeals to the District Judge, were deemed valid exercises of legislative power under the 'administration of justice.'4. Impact of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution:The 42nd Amendment transferred the topic of 'administration of justice' from Entry 3 of List II to Entry 11-A of List III, making it a concurrent subject. The court held that both the State Legislature and Parliament have the competence to legislate on this subject. It was noted that the State Legislature was not enacting any law repugnant to any central law, and the amendments made prior to the 42nd Amendment were validly enacted.5. Judicial Control of the High Court over Subordinate Courts:The court rejected the argument that the amendments impinged upon the judicial control of the High Court over subordinate courts. It clarified that the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court was not completely taken away; rather, the first appeals were directed to the District Judge, with second appeals still maintainable in the High Court. Thus, the judicial control of the High Court over subordinate courts remained intact.Conclusion:The court dismissed the applications challenging the vires of the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Acts, 1977 and 1978, and upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature to amend the jurisdiction of the High Court. The amendments were found to be valid exercises of legislative power under the 'administration of justice,' and the judicial control of the High Court over subordinate courts was not affected by these amendments.