The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently dismissed a writ petition filed against the State of Punjab and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner approached the court seeking relief against certain notices issued by the Punjab authorities. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to show how the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court.
Read also: Supreme Court: Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflecting Her Marital Standard of Living
"The petitioner himself had prayed for dismissal of this writ petition even before it was filed," Justice Rahul Bharti said while pronouncing the order.
The court emphasised that the plea of jurisdiction is a mandatory requirement when a writ petition is filed against authorities outside the territorial scope of the court. The counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1997, there is no express mandate to plead territorial jurisdiction.
However, the court rejected this argument and said:
“Such a pedantic reading of procedural rules cannot override the constitutional requirement provided under Article 226(1).”
Read also: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Next Radio’s Petition Against Copyright Rule 29(4)
The court further clarified that Article 226 clearly limits the writ powers of the High Court to persons or officers within its territorial limits. Since both the respondents—State of Punjab and the ACP, Jalandhar—were situated outside the jurisdiction, the petition did not have any valid ground for the court to consider it.
“There was not a word in the petition as to how the cause of action arose within Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh,” the court said.
There was also no claim or explanation as to how the Jammu and Kashmir High Court could claim jurisdiction over Punjab-based officers.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the dismissal of this petition will not affect the rights of the petitioner in a separate criminal writ proceeding relating to an FIR lodged in Jalandhar, which involves different legal issues.
Read also: Law student Sharmistha Panoli sent to 14 days judicial custody over controversial video on Operation
Finally, the High Court reiterated that clarity about jurisdiction is important when exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 226. Without such a ground, the writ petition cannot stand.
APPEARANCE
Rahul Sharma, Advocate For Petitioner.
Mrs Monika Kohli, Senior AAG For Respondents
Case-Title: Thakur Ashwani Singh vs State of Punjab , 2025
