[A. 139 of Constitution] SC expounds Likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer

  

Read Judgment

Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition filed under Article 139A(1) read withOrder XLof the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, praying for transfer of various writ petitions,pending beforedifferent High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Paymentof Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015.

Petitioner’s Contention:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the saidissues, relating to the retrospective operation of the amended provisionsand linkage of calculation of bonus with minimum wages for thescheduled employment, are forming the subject-matter of more than 140writ petitions filed across the country in as many as 18 High Courts. It was argued that with large number of petitions involvingsimilar and akin issues being taken up in different High Courts, there isevery likelihood of conflicting views being expressed by different HighCourts, which may lead to an undesirable situation. 

Respondent’s Contention:

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that if the contention regarding the possibility of conflicting decisions by different High Courts is accepted, it would practically mean that every challenge to the validity of a central statute shall have to be decided by this Court, which is not the mandate and framework of the constitutional scheme. It was argued that mere possibility of divergence of views or interpretations cannot be a ground for transfer of all the proceedings to this Court. 

SC’s Observations:

After hearing both the sides SC noted thatthe role of the appropriate Government even as regards the power of exemption is seen in Section 36 of the Act of 1965 and in this view of the matter too, in our view, the decision of individual writ petitions by the jurisdictional High Courts shall be in the best interest of the respective parties.

SC stated thatultimately, the decision to transfer or not, to this Court or to one High Court, has beentaken by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 139A of the Constitution of India with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances. 

SC further stated that no hard and fast rule or any structured formula isprovided nor appears desirable; a comprehensive view of all the facts andrelevant surrounding factors is the best guiding light for exercise of thisjurisdiction under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.

SC Held:

After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “we are clearly of the view that transfer of the pending writ petitions from the respective High Courts is not called for. The likelihood of divergence of views, looking to the framework of the statute itself, cannot be a ground for transfer. Equally, there appears no reason to transfer the matters to any one High Court; rather it appears just and proper that the petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts are decided with reference to their own factual background and the law applicable.Accordingly, the prayer for transfer of the subject petitions isdeclined.

Case Title: Union of India etc. v. The United Planters Association of Southern India Etc. & Ors.

Bench: J. Dinesh Maheshwari and J. Vikram Nath

Citation: TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 884-895 OF 2016

Decided on: 11^th July, 2022 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure