The Delhi High Court questioned the territorial jurisdiction of a suit filed by singer Jubin Nautiyal seeking protection of his personality rights. The matter was heard by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who at the outset asked the petitioner’s counsel why the suit had been instituted in Delhi. The court noted that Nautiyal is based in Uttarakhand and observed that the courts in Uttarakhand would be competent to entertain the petition. The judge remarked that everything accessible in Delhi was equally accessible in Uttarakhand, thereby questioning the necessity of filing the suit in the national capital.
During the hearing, the court examined the basis on which territorial jurisdiction had been claimed. It raised queries about whether the presence of central government authorities in Delhi, such as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Personnel and Training, could by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court. The bench observed that the mere location of these authorities in Delhi would not automatically grant territorial jurisdiction and emphasized that jurisdiction must be determined based on the cause of action and relevant legal principles.
The court underscored that the primary grievance raised by Nautiyal related to alleged infringement of his personality rights. It questioned why the courts in Uttarakhand, where the singer resides, would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The judge made it clear that the existence of central authorities in Delhi was not sufficient to establish that the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that certain defendants and controlling authorities operated from Delhi. However, the court found that such submissions were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The judge reiterated that territorial jurisdiction cannot be determined merely on the basis of convenience or the location of government departments. Instead, it must be grounded in the facts constituting the cause of action and in accordance with the applicable provisions of civil procedure law.
The court’s remarks reflected its scrutiny of the choice of forum and its insistence on adherence to jurisdictional norms. It emphasized that a suit must be filed in a court that is legally competent to entertain it and that the residence of the petitioner and the place where the cause of action arose are significant considerations. The judge questioned whether there was any substantial connection between the dispute and Delhi that would justify the institution of proceedings in the High Court.
The hearing focused on whether the petitioner had demonstrated a legally sustainable basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The bench indicated that arguments based solely on the presence of central ministries in Delhi were not adequate to satisfy the requirements of territorial jurisdiction. The court stressed that the principles governing jurisdiction must be strictly followed and that litigants cannot choose a forum without establishing that it has the authority to adjudicate the matter.
The court stated that it would consider the issue of jurisdiction in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The proceedings thus centered on determining whether the suit seeking protection of personality rights could be maintained before the Delhi High Court or whether it ought to be filed before a court with proper territorial jurisdiction, such as in Uttarakhand. The matter remains under consideration, with the court closely examining whether the legal prerequisites for invoking its jurisdiction have been met.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.