Madras High Court Recalls Order Restricting Pan-State PILs to Principal Seat, Reaffirms Madurai Bench Jurisdiction Based on Cause of Action

Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a significant order, has recalled an observation made in a previous judgment which suggested that public interest litigations (PILs) and other matters covering the entire state should exclusively be filed at the Principal Bench in Chennai. A Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala allowed a review petition filed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association, clarifying that the Madurai Bench's jurisdiction for such matters is determined by where the cause of action arises.

The review petition was filed against paragraph 3 of an order dated March 4, 2021, in W.P.(MD) No.4725 of 2021, which stated: "While it is appropriate to institute public interest litigations pertaining to the districts covered by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras, when pan-State matters are the subject matter of any litigation, including the public interest litigation, they should be carried to the principal seat of the Court."

The Madurai Bench Bar Association argued that this observation unduly restricted the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai, which was established to exercise the powers of the High Court within specified districts.

The Court, upon reviewing the matter, noted that the observation in the earlier order appeared to be merely a "passing observation." It then delved into the legal framework governing the Madurai Bench.

Established Legal Position on Jurisdiction

The Bench referred to the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, which clearly defines the districts falling under the Madurai Bench's jurisdiction (originally 14, later modified in 2009). Crucially, the 2004 Order includes a proviso granting the Chief Justice the discretion to order any case or class of cases arising in the Madurai districts to be heard at Chennai.

The Court heavily relied on the Full Bench decision in B. Stalin v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India [2012 (4) CTC 113] , which had analyzed the territorial division between the Principal Bench and the Permanent Bench. The Full Bench in B. Stalin had summarized the legal position as decided in the earlier Division Bench case of E. Mary Oliviya v. E. Jshoua Milton [2008 (7) MLJ 1012] .

Key among these summarized points (Paragraph 42 of E. Mary Oliviya, cited in B. Stalin ) is the rule for writ petitions:

"(4) Writ petitions can be filed before the Principal Bench at Madras or Permanent Bench at Madurai depending upon the place where the cause of action has arisen. If the cause of action has arisen wholly within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench, obviously such writ petition can be filed only at the seat of the Principal Bench or of the Permanent Bench as the case may be. On the other hand, if the cause of action arises either wholly or in part within the areas allotted to the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai, the writ petition can be filed at any of the places."

The Full Bench in B. Stalin had emphasized that these conclusions "should have set at rest all controversies regarding the jurisdiction between two benches." It also reiterated the Chief Justice's role as the "Master of Rolls" with well-defined powers.

Court's Finding and Decision

The Court in the present review petition found that the observation in the 2021 order, which suggested a blanket restriction on pan-State matters to the Principal Seat, was inconsistent with the 2004 notification establishing the Madurai Bench and the clear legal position settled by the Full Bench in B. Stalin .

The judgment stated: "To restrict the pan-State matters only at the principal seat would not be appropriate in view of the notification constituting the Bench at Madurai... blanket order that when pan-State matters are subject matter of litigation, the same should be filed only at principal seat would not be appropriate for the functioning of the Bench at Madurai nor it would be in tune with the notification constituting Madurai Bench and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of B.Stalin (supra)."

The Court reiterated that the Chief Justice retains administrative powers to transfer cases from the Madurai Bench to the Principal Seat if deemed necessary.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the review petition and formally recalled paragraph 3 of the order dated March 4, 2021. This ruling reaffirms that the criterion for filing writ petitions, including those concerning pan-State issues, at either the Principal Bench or the Madurai Bench is primarily governed by where the cause of action arises, consistent with established precedents and the High Court's operational framework.

The judgment effectively removes the ambiguity created by the earlier observation, ensuring clarity on the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench concerning matters that may have a wider state-level impact but where the cause of action originates within its designated districts.