CBSE Affiliation Bylaws Jurisdiction Clause Cannot Exempt Courts From Invoking Doctrine OF Forum Conveniens: Delhi HC

On that contention, a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela thus observed, “…this Clause cannot be read in a matter that would permit all cases filed against the CBSE, regardless of the existence of a more appropriate forum, to be adjudicated in the Union Territory of Delhi; the existence of such a clause cannot exempt Courts from invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens especially in cases like the present where no direct actions of the CBSE have been impugned by the Appellant. Thus, the Clause has to be interpreted purposively to include within its ambit only those cases where the cause of action is attributable to the CBSE. This position is also supported by the stand of the Learned Counsel for the CBSE before the Ld. Single Judge to the effect that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter”.

In the matter, the appellant appeared-in-person and Advocate Seema Dolo appeared for CBSE.

The Appellant had preferred a writ petition before the court seeking directions against CBSE to permit her to appear for Class X and Class XII examinations, where during the pendency the Court, through interlocutory orders, directed the Respondent School to readmit her and further directed the school to conduct Grade VII and Grade VIII examinations for her benefit.

However, while dismissing the first writ petition the Court had considered that the appellant was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and that the Respondent School was also located in Uttar Pradesh, holding that mere inclusion of CBSE as a respondent was not sufficient to enable the Court to exercise its jurisdiction. Even the review petition against the judgement was dismissed with ₹ 30,000 as cost.

Subsequently, another writ petition was filed seeking compensation from CBSE for alleged “intentional harassment, mental trauma of holding back the Petitioner in Class VII for two academic years in violation of RTE Act”. However, while placing reliance on Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162 the Single Judge bench in its impugned judgment dismissed on the grounds of non-conveniens, considering that the appellant attempted to find territorial jurisdiction in Delhi merely because CBSE is headquartered in Delhi.

The appellant, however, contended that ; the existence of such a clause cannot exempt Courts from invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens especially in cases like the present where no direct actions of the CBSE have been impugned by the Appellant. Thus, the Clause has to be interpreted purposively to include within its ambit only those cases where the cause of action is attributable to the CBSE. This position is also supported by the stand of the Learned Counsel for the CBSE before the Ld. Single Judge to the effect that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

Therefore, considering the grounds and facts in the matter, the bench further observed, “In essence, the basis of the Appellant’s claim for compensation is the loss of an academic year due a delay in examinations for Grade VIII. As the responsibility for conducting the examinations fell on the Respondent School, it is plain that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent School is located. Moreover, it must also be noted that the Appellant is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, on a holistic examination of these circumstances, as the Appellant has failed to produce any material establishing that the grievance caused to her is directly attributable to the actions of the CBSE, we cannot but conclude that this Court is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of this matter”.

Cause Title: Riddhima Singh Through Her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Chairman & Ors [Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8101-DB]