Court holds jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on the location of authority passing the order, not on petitioner’s residence or place of effect of order
In a significant judgment delivered on August 6, 2026, the Allahabad High Court clarified the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of employment-related writ petitions. The case, titled Yadvendra Singh v. Union of India and Others, revolved around the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation of his appointment as a Tradesman Mate at the 9 Field Ordnance Depot in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, on grounds of pending criminal cases.
The petitioner, an OBC male candidate, was selected at all stages but faced cancellation of his appointment due to these criminal proceedings. He filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, claiming grievance against the order dated June 15, 2017, issued by the Administrative Officer of the 9 Field Ordnance Depot.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection stating that the Allahabad High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the impugned order was passed by an authority located in Himachal Pradesh. The Court examined the issue deeply, relying primarily on a landmark seven-judge Bench Supreme Court decision in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India (1960), which clarified the ambit of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, who delivered the judgment, emphasized that the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 is confined to the territory within which the authority or person against whom the writ is sought is located, and not based on the residence of the petitioner or the place where the order has effect. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s reasoning that although a government may function nationwide, its seat or location determines the territorial jurisdiction for writ petitions. The Court further explained that allowing jurisdiction based on the place where the order affects persons would cause conflicts and confusion among High Courts.
The petitioner’s reliance on several High Court precedents where part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was noted. However, the Court distinguished those cases by stating that the impugned order was passed by an authority situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. In the instant case, since both the recruiting authority and the office that passed the order were located in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court was not the appropriate forum.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the courts or the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh for redressal of his grievance.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is linked to the location of the authority or person against whom relief is sought, thereby preventing forum shopping and jurisdictional conflicts.
Bottom Line:
Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India depends on the location of the authority or person against whom a writ is sought, and not on the residence of the petitioner or the place where the order has effect.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
This report summarizes the Allahabad High Court’s ruling on the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in writ petitions under Article 226, clarifying that jurisdiction depends on the location of the authority passing the impugned order and not on the petitioner’s residence or the impact location of the order.
Yadvendra Singh v. Union Of India, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2958571
