Are Judgments Of A High Court Applicable Throughout India?

Under Article 215 of the Constitution, a High Court like Supreme Court is a Court of record and have the powers to punish contempt of itself. Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India have been conferred with the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 respectively; the former wider than the latter. In fact, in the High Court bar Association, Allahabad Vs State of U.P & Ors., [2024 INSC 15], the Supreme Court pointed out that it is a well settled proposition that the High Court is not judicially subordinate to the Supreme Court and that a High Court is constitutionally independent of the Supreme Court of India. The Court took strength from the following passage in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd & Ors., Vs State of Bihar & Ors., [(2004) 5 SCC 1]:

“Under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High Courts, both are Courts of record. The High Court is not a court subordinate to the Supreme Court … The High Court exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over all subordinate Courts and tribunals; the Supreme Court has not been conferred with any power of superintendence. If the Supreme Court and the High Courts both were thought of as brothers, the High Court has larger jurisdiction but the Supreme Court still remains the elder brother.”

Unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India which says that 'The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India', there is no such provision for the High Courts. As the elder brother of the High Courts, the Supreme Court of India may set aside or reverse the judgments rendered by the High Courts. But what if a judgment rendered by one of the High Courts is not challenged before the Supreme Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction? Or if a judgment of a High Court is challenged but remains sub judice before the Supreme Court for a long time without any interim order staying the operation of the High Court's judgment? In both the cases, is the judgment of one of the High Courts applicable to the whole of India?

In Union of India Vs Textile Technical Association [(2014) 4 LLJ 683], a division bench of the Madras High Court held that “if any of the High Court declares a provision of the Parliamentary Legislation as unconstitutional, the said decision is applicable throughout the territory of India/wherever the enactment was held applicable.” The brief facts culminating into the judgment is this:

A. The Respondent association raised an industrial dispute with respect to revision of wages payable to the workmen of the Anglo French Textiles, a unit of the Puducherry Textiles Corporation Limited;

B. The Labour Court passed an award with certain directions;

C. The Government of Puducherry declared that the award was unenforceable in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 17A(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;

D. The above provision of the ID Act, 1947 had already been declared unconstitutional by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Telugunadu Workcharged Employees State Federation, Nalgonda District Unit President Vs the Government of India [(1997) 3 ALT 492];

E. The Respondent association challenged the order passed by the Government of Puducherry before a single judge of the Madras High Court. Following the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, the writ petition was allowed;

F. Aggrieved, the single judge's order was challenged before the division bench of the Madras High Court. The Appellant primary contended that the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court declaring Section 17A(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unconstitutional did not extend to the territory of the Union territory of Puducherry and therefore the single judge could not have passed the impugned order relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's declaration.

The division bench of the Madras High Court relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, according to which “The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.” Moreover, the division bench also placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 6 SCC 254]. According to the Supreme Court:

“A parliamentary legislation unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India and that if passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a vacuum.

The Court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act, whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.”

The Madras High Court also pointed out that the Karnataka High Court had earlier held that pronouncement on the constitutionality of a provision of a Central Act by a High Court would be applicable throughout India [Shiv Kumar v. Union of India, (AIR 2014 Karnataka 73)].

Again, in Dr. T. Rajakumari Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2016 MAD 177], a division bench of the Madras High Court led by the Chief Justice held that, “it is trite to say that once a High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Act, it cannot be said that it would be selectively applied in other States. Thus, there is no question of applicability of provisions struck down by the High Court as of now until and unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court upsets the Judgment or stays the operation of the Judgment.” The reference was of a judgment of the Delhi High Court that had struck down certain provisions of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Though the judgment of the Delhi High Court was put to challenge before the Supreme Court, no interim order staying the operation of the Delhi High Court's judgment had been granted. Hence, the Madras High Court declined to interfere.

Therefore, when a central legislation or certain provision of it is declared unconstitutional by one of the High Courts, it is applicable throughout India unless the Supreme Court upsets it.

The author is an Advocate at the Madras High Court. Views are personal.