IMPORTANT POINTS
Parties to a contract conferring jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts cannot be said to have ousted jurisdiction of all courts.
No limitation can be placed on powers of High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Existence of alternate remedy is not an absolute legal bar on exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.
It is not open to a High Court to abdicate this responsibility merely due to the existence of a privately negotiated document ousting its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. The present appeal raises the issue of whether a private agreement entered into between the Appellant and the second Respondent in the form of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the latter can, by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at Chennai, oust the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent is as follows:

“21. Legal Course

(i) The Federation shall sue and or be sued only in the name of the Hon. Secretary of the Federation.

(ii) Any Suits/Legal actions against the Federation shall be instituted only in the Courts at Chennai, where the Registered Office of All India Chess Federation is situated or at the place where the Secretariat of the All India Chess Federation is functioning”

3. The second Respondent, the All India Chess Federation is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 [“The Act of 1860”]. It is a central governing authority for chess in India. The Appellant is a society registered under the Act of 1860 and was an affiliated member of the second Respondent since 1978. On 25 December 2016, the Central Council of the second Respondent passed a resolution to disaffiliate the Appellant. After the institution of the writ proceedings, the third Respondent has been affiliated by the second Respondent in place of the Appellant.

4. The Appellant had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution impleading, inter alia the second Respondent. The second Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Bombay High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on the ground that Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Chennai in disputes involving the second Respondent and any other party to the Constitution and Bye Laws, including the Appellant. The Bombay High Court held that Clause 21 ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts except the courts at Chennai. The High Court held:

“…In the facts of the present case when there is existence of Clause 21 which we have adverted to herein above, in our view, the jurisdiction of the other Courts except the Courts at Chennai in respect of any Suits/Legal action which are brought against Respondent No. 2 are ousted…”

5. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that :

(i) Article 226 provides a constitutional remedy where fundamental rights or other legal rights are violated or are under a threat of violation;

(ii) Parties cannot by a privately negotiated agreement oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court;

(iii) Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised in the facts of a given case has to be determined by the High Court; and

(iv) In the present case, the High Court has manifestly erred in holding that Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent created an absolute bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the High Court.

6. Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that:

(i) There can be no ouster of a public law remedy as is embodied in Article 226;

(ii) Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent is a non-statutory contract, the impact of which has to be considered by the Bombay High Court, which it failed to do; and

(iii) Judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and can neither be confined nor abrogated.

7. Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second Respondent urged that in essence by the impugned judgment, the High Court has in its discretion, declined to entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, it is urged that properly construed, the High Court did not hold that there was an ouster of its jurisdiction but that in the facts and circumstances, it was not appropriate to exercise the writ jurisdiction when p