Home Jurisdiction Federalism also applies to judiciary, Madras High Court says

Federalism also applies to judiciary, Madras High Court says


He believes that only Karnataka HC can resolve a dispute over the removal of a medical school in Bengaluru from the scope of a reputable university in Chennai

He believes that only Karnataka HC can resolve a dispute over the removal of a medical school in Bengaluru from the scope of a reputable university in Chennai

Federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and also applies to the judicial system. A High Court of one state cannot exercise powers which under normal circumstances can only be exercised by the High Court of another state, the Madras High Court said, while holding that only the High Court Karnataka Court can adjudicate a dispute related to removal from a Bengaluru Medical College under a reputed University in Chennai.

Justice Abdul Quddhose ordered the High Court Registry to dismiss a joint petition filed by Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute in Chennai and Raja Rajeswari Medical College and Hospital in Bangalore challenging an order passed by the Ministry of Education of the Union on 24 May this year. . The ministry had withdrawn a notification issued on February 14, 2019 stating that the college in Bengaluru would come under the University of Chennai.

As the contested order was issued by the Center pursuant to an instruction issued by the Karnataka High Court on November 30, 2021 to reconsider the granting of the ‘Scope Notice 2019’, this Motion in Brief No should have been filed only in Karnataka, Judge Quddhose said. He rejected the argument that part of the cause of action arose in Chennai due to the location of the university and therefore the Madras High Court could hear the case.

Forum not conveniens is a common law legal doctrine whereby a court recognizes that another forum or court where the case could have been brought is a more appropriate place for a court case and transfers the case to such a forum…A concern often raised in doctrine-related claims is forum shopping or choosing a court simply to gain an advantage in a proceeding… In this case, the appropriate court to decide the Lily (dispute) is the High Court of Karnataka,” the judge wrote.

He pointed out that the matter is also in the public interest as the ‘2019 Scope Notification’ was issued by the Center despite the objection raised by the Government of Karnataka on the grounds that allowing the Bengaluru Medical College to come under the University of Chennai might not be in the interest of the students of his state. The government of Karnataka had insisted that the college continue its affiliation with the Rajiv Gandhi University of Karnataka Health Sciences.

The state government had also filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court in 2020 challenging the “2019 scope notification” and a single judge granted the petition on November 3, 2020. Immediately, a writ appeal was preferred, leading to a split bench. of this High Court ordering the reconsideration of the issuance of the notice. It was as a result of this order that the Center had, in May this year, withdrawn its 2019 notification, leading to the present motion for an order.

In the meantime, the medical school in Bengaluru had admitted three groups of students based on the curriculum prescribed by the reputed university based in Chennai, and now there was confusion whether he should follow the same curriculum. or revert to the one followed by Rajiv. Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Since the case involved the interests of general students in the neighboring state, it would be best if the Karnataka High Court resolved the issue, Justice Quddhose added.

“The principle of read alibi during (litigation pending elsewhere) also applies to the current case. It applies to resolve the problem of potentially contradictory judgments. If two courts were to hear the same dispute, it is possible that they will render incompatible decisions. Read alibi during stems from international comity and allows a court to decline to exercise jurisdiction when there is parallel litigation pending in another jurisdiction,” he said.