•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

SC sets back Indira Jaising in Delhi-Centre turf war case, declines to stop HC

The much awaited Delhi-Centre turf war case was finally heard today at court No 4 around noon as item 64, with the bench of justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit giving the Delhi Government's counsel, Indira Jaising, enough opportunity to make her submissions, but without compromising its position that it would not direct the high court to first decide the jurisdiction issue.

The bench disposed the Delhi Government's SLP against the Delhi high court's judgment reserved in the case, but not before Indira Jaising and the Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi had another round of confrontation with each other, only several days after their altercation in court No 3 before the Justice JS Khehar-Arun Mishra bench last week.

Today, while the AG sat through without uttering a word while Jaising was making her submissions, the AG gave vent to his anger by telling her, “Don't argue with me”, when she interjected even as he described her submissions as totally misconceived.

Jaising retorted: “I am also telling the court”.

Jaising's major contention was that the high court was not competent to decide the case, as only the Supreme Court could deal with federal issues involving Centre and the State.

But when Justice Dipak Misra asked Jaising, who had knocked on the doors of the high court at the first instance, about what prevented her from withdrawing her petition in the high court if she believed the high court had no jurisdiction, Jaising responded saying that the Centre was equally responsible for invoking the high court's jurisdiction.

She also said that because the Union of India was a petitioner in one case she could not have withdrawn the other petition that was filed by the Delhi Government.

Justice Misra turned Indira Jaising's question on its head by suggesting that the high court could well decide whether or not it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter and whether it was a preliminary issue to be decided first, and if she was aggrieved with its decision then she could avail the appellate remedy in the Supreme Court.

When Jaising persisted that the bench could at least add a sentence in the order asking the high court to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction first, Justice Dipak Misra said: “Whenever we refer to the high court, we are extremely guarded. I always feel how I would feel, if I were the chief justice of the high court, and if the Supreme Court directs the high court to decide an issue one way or the other, because high court is equally a Constitutional authority like the Supreme Court.”

Click to show 2 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.