Concurrent Jurisdiction: Is Approaching the First Instance Court Mandatory?

In the complex world of legal proceedings, jurisdiction determines where a case can be filed. But what happens when multiple courts share concurrent jurisdiction? A common question arises: In case of concurrent jurisdiction, is it mandatory to approach court of first instance? This is particularly relevant in criminal matters like anticipatory bail applications under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the successor to the CrPC.

This blog post breaks down the legal principles, statutory framework, and judicial insights to clarify this issue. While courts emphasize judicious exercise of power, it's generally not mandatory to start at the lowest level. However, strategic considerations often play a role. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

What is Concurrent Jurisdiction?

Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two or more courts have the authority to hear the same type of case or application simultaneously. This promotes flexibility, accessibility, and efficiency in India's justice system. In criminal law, it commonly arises between High Courts and Sessions Courts for bail matters, revisions, and initial filings. 2025 7 Supreme 339

For instance, under Section 482 BNSS (mirroring old CrPC Section 438 for anticipatory bail), both the High Court and Sessions Court can entertain applications. This setup avoids rigid hierarchies but requires courts to apply their mind judiciously. 2025 7 Supreme 339

Statutory Framework: No Absolute Mandate

Statutes like the BNSS explicitly grant concurrent powers without mandating a sequential approach. Key provisions include:

• Section 482 BNSS: High Courts and Sessions Courts share jurisdiction for anticipatory bail. The High Court can entertain applications directly, but must evaluate if direct intervention is warranted or if the matter should be directed to the Sessions Court. 2025 7 Supreme 339
• Section 439 CrPC (now under BNSS equivalents): The language under Section 439 Cr.P.C. means that High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent powers or jurisdiction. In such scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that party cannot be compelled to first approach the Sessions Court to file application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 1445 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 410

These provisions underscore that while lower courts are often preferable for judicial economy, parties cannot be compelled to approach them first. High Courts retain discretion based on facts, fairness, and efficiency. 2025 7 Supreme 339

Judicial Pronouncements: Applying the Mind

Courts have consistently ruled against mechanical relegation to lower forums. A pivotal insight from recent case law: The High Court must apply its mind to determine if the case merits direct adjudication or referral to Sessions Court. Failure to do so can result in orders being set aside. 2025 7 Supreme 339

• High Court-Sessions Court Dynamics: The High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court regarding anticipatory bail applications. Courts must consider judicial economy and fairness before directing parties elsewhere. 2025 7 Supreme 339
• No Compulsion in Bail/Revision: Supreme Court precedents affirm that in concurrent scenarios under Section 439 CrPC, litigants aren't forced to start at Sessions level. 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 1445

In revision matters, while revisional jurisdiction is concurrent, it's often advisable (but not mandatory) to approach Sessions Court first: Under section 397 of Cr. P. C. , there is a concurrent jurisdiction of this Court and the Sessions court but in such matters first the litigant has to approach to the Sessions Court. 2001 0 Supreme(Guj) 173 However, exceptions exist where direct High Court approach is justified.

Other contexts reinforce discretion:- Revisional Powers: The revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and High Court is concurrent, and ordinarily a person aggrieved must approach the Sessions Court first. Yet, first informants can invoke Sessions jurisdiction directly in acquittal revisions. 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 838- Civil Transfers: Courts can transfer cases under Section 24 CPC for justice, showing flexibility beyond rigid first-instance rules. 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 1445

When Might Courts Direct to First Instance?

Though not mandatory, courts may guide parties to lower forums for:

1. Judicial Hierarchy and Economy: The jurisdiction is concurrent and it is always advisable for the parties to approach the court lowest in hierarchy to enable them to pursue appropriate remedies in appeal. 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1235
2. Preliminary Issues: Jurisdiction questions, like territorial ones, should be decided first: The Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance. 2003 0 Supreme(P&H) 912 1998 0 Supreme(P&H) 675
3. Alternative Remedies: Direct High Court petitions may be dismissed if Sessions Court is available, unless urgency or complexity justifies otherwise. 2001 0 Supreme(Guj) 173

In anticipatory bail, High Courts analyze facts before deciding. Mechanical dismissals are frowned upon: Courts should not mechanically dismiss or relegate cases without considering the facts and legal provisions involved. 2025 7 Supreme 339

Practical Implications for Litigants

• Strategic Filing: Assess case sensitivity—High Courts suit high-profile or urgent matters; Sessions Courts offer quicker access for routine ones.
• Advocate Awareness: Litigants should highlight why direct approach is appropriate, avoiding perceptions of 'forum shopping'.
• Court Expectations: Judges must explicitly reason their jurisdictional exercise, promoting transparency. 2025 7 Supreme 339

From civil parallels, concurrent findings by lower courts limit High Court interference under Section 100 CPC, emphasizing lower court primacy where possible. 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 439 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 442

Key Takeaways and Conclusion

In concurrent jurisdiction scenarios, it is typically not mandatory to approach the court of first instance. Statutes and judgments prioritize judicial discretion, facts, and fairness over rigid rules. High Courts can entertain matters directly but must apply their mind, especially in anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482. 2025 7 Supreme 339

While advisable for efficiency, bypassing lower courts isn't barred, as affirmed in bail and revision contexts. 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 1445 Always tailor your approach to case merits.

Key Takeaways:- Concurrent jurisdiction offers choice, not compulsion.- Courts must judiciously exercise power; no mechanical referrals.- Approach lower courts for appeals/remedies, but direct High Court filings are viable.

Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence. For personalized guidance, consult legal experts. This analysis draws from established precedents to aid understanding.

References:- 2025 7 Supreme 339 – Core on BNSS anticipatory bail jurisdiction.- 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 1445, 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 410 – No compulsion under CrPC 439.- 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 838, 2001 0 Supreme(Guj) 173 – Revision insights.- Others as cited for broader context.