“Jurisdiction Is Governed By Law & Not Geographical limits": Delhi HC Dismisses Ph.D. Scholar's Plea Against Aligarh Muslim University
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by a Ph.D. candidate against Aligarh Muslim University explaining that jurisdiction is not determined by the convenience of geographical proximity that suits the petitioner.
The Court directed the petitioner, who was enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Aligarh Muslim University and had conducted her academic work there, to take her grievances against the said University to the appropriate forum in the State of Uttar Pradesh where the University was situated. “The proximity of Aligarh to Delhi has no bearing on the determination of jurisdiction,” the Court explained.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Jurisdiction is governed by law and not geographical limits and necessarily the jurisdiction will fall, where the cause of action has arisen, not by the convenience of geographical proximity that suits the petitioner. If this argument is to be accepted by this Court, every resident of State of Uttar Pradesh who lives in cities or districts near Delhi could then claim that they must be allowed to approach this High Court for redressal of their grievances instead of the Allahabad High Court.”
Advocate Sulaiman Mohd Khan appeared for the petitioner, while CGSC Monika Arora represented the respondents.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to extend the Ph. D. tenure of the petitioner by 10 months as a bonafide Researcher in the Department of Wildlife Sciences, AMU as a special case. The petitioner alleged AMU’s non-compliance with University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, submitting that the UGC’s failure to act constituted a part of the cause of action within Delhi’s jurisdiction.
The petitioner further alleged that Ph.D. supervisor at AMU made inappropriate advances toward her. Following her rejection of these advances, the petitioner alleged that her research, initially praised by the professor, was declared unfit for a doctoral degree. The petitioner submitted that she filed complaints with the university's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), accusing the supervisor of sexual harassment.
The petitioner argued that the University Grants Commission (UGC), headquartered in Delhi, had failed to take timely action on her complaint, contributing to the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
The High Court observed that a substantial cause of action had arisen entirely within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Uttar Pradesh and remarked, “The prayers sought by the petitioner further substantiate the fact that the cause of action lies within the territorial limits of State of Uttar Pradesh.”
The Bench explained, “The petitioner is essentially challenging the actions and decisions of AMU, not the UGC. Therefore, the inaction of the UGC is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court when the substantive actions that have given rise to the dispute are rooted in State of Uttar Pradesh. Even otherwise, it is not a case that UGC cannot be made a party in a petition before any other High Court in the country since its headquarters is in Delhi. UGC is a statutory body, enacted by the law of Parliament, and a writ against the same can be filed in any High Court, where the cause of action has arisen.”
The Court reiterated that the determination of jurisdiction must be decided on the basis as to where the cause of action has arisen. “Therefore, the petitioner‟s argument regarding convenience of travel and cost-effectiveness, in this Court‟s view, is misplaced,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “This Court is thus of the view that the petitioner, having enrolled herself in the Ph.D. program at Aligarh Muslim University and having conducted her academic work there, must take her grievances against the said University to the appropriate forum in the State of Uttar Pradesh where the University is situated.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: H v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7139)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sulaiman Mohd Khan, Hilaluddin, G.K. Singh and MMA Chowdhary
Respondents: CGSC Monika Arora; Advocates Subhrodeep Sahal, Anshuman Sharma, Azaz Ahmed and Aman Naqvi
