Jurisdiction - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition jurisdiction

Definition :

Jurisdiction, is a verbal coat of many colours. Jurisdiction originally seems to have had the meaning which Lord Reid ascribed to it in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1969) 2 AC 147, namely, the entitlement 'to enter upon the enquiry in question, M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, (1972) 2 SCC 427: (1973) 1 SCR 697.

Jurisdiction, legal authority; extent of power; declaration of the law. Jurisdiction may be limited either locally, as that of a County Court, or personally, as where a Court has a quorum, or as to amount, or as to the character of the questions to be determined.

By 'jurisdiction' is meant the extent of the power which is conferred upon the court by its constitu-tion to try a proceedings, Raja Soap Factory v. S.P. Shantharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1449 (1451): (1965) 2 SCR 800.

The word 'jurisdiction' is a verbal coat of many colours. Jurisdiction originally means the entitle-ment 'to enter upon the enquiry in question'. If there was an entitlement to enter upon an enquiry, into the question, then any subsequent error could only be regarded as an error within the jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction is determinable at the commencement, not at the conclusion of the enquiry, M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379: (1972) 2 SCC 427: (1973) 1 SCR 697.

The word 'jurisdiction' is an expression which is used in a variety of senses and takes its colour from its context. Whereas the 'pure' theory of jurisdic-tion would reduce jurisdictional control to a vani-shing point, the adoption of a narrower meaning might result in a more useful legal concept even though the formal structure of law may lose something of its logical symmetry, Hari Prasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V.B. Raju, AIR 1973 SC 2602: (1974) 3 SCC 415. [Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 100 (1)(d)(iv)]

The expression 'jurisdiction' in this section has not been used in the limited sense of the term, as connoting the 'power' to do or order to do the particular act complained of, but is used in a wide sense as meaning 'generally the authority of the judicial officer to act in the matters', Rachapudi Subba Rao v. Advocate General, AIR 1981 SC 755: (1981) 2 SCR 320: (1981) 2 SCC 577.

Jurisdiction should not be confused with status and subordination. Parliament was motivated to create new adjudicatory for to provide new, cheap and fast-track adjudicatory systems and permitting them to function by tearing off the conventional shackles of the strict rule of pleadings, strict rule of evidence, tardy trials, three/four-tier appeals, endless revisions and reviews - creating hurdles in the fast flow of the stream of justice. The Administrative Tribunals as established under Article 323A and the Adminis-trative Tribunals Act, 1985 are an alternative insti-tutional mechanism or authority, designed to be not less effective than the High Court, consistently with the amended constitutional scheme but at the same time not to negate judicial review jurisdiction of constitutional courts. Transfer of jurisdiction in specified matters from the High Court to the Administrative Tribunal equates the Tribunal with the High Court insofar as the exercise of judicial authority over the specified matters is concerned. That, however, does not assign the Administrative Tribunals a status equivalent to that of the High Court nor does that mean that for the purpose of judicial review or judicial superintendence they cannot be subordinate to the High Court. It has to be remembered that what has been conferred on the Administrative Tribunal is not only jurisdiction of the High Court but also of the subordinate courts as to specified matters, T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 516.

The word 'jurisdiction' implies the court or tribunal with judical power to hear and determine a cause, and such tribunal cannot exist except by authority of law. Jurisdiction always emanates directly and immediately from the law; it is a power which nobody on whom the law has not conferred it can exercise, CIT v. Pearl Mech Engineering & Foundry Works (P) Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2345: (2004) 4 SCC 597 (603). (Income-tax Act, 1961)

The expression 'jurisdiction' does not mean the power to do or order the act impugned, but generally the authority of the Judicial Officer to act in the matter, Tayen v. Ram Lal, ILR 12 All 115 relied; Anowar Hussain v. Ajay Kumar Mukherjee, AIR 1965 SC 1651 (1654): (1965) 2 Cri LJ 686. [Judicial Officers Protection Act, (18 of 1850), s. 1]

The word 'jurisdiction' in s. 125 really signifies the initial jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case. It refers to the stage at which proceedings are instituted in a court and not to the jurisdiction of the ordinary court and the court-martial to decide the case in merits, Delhi Special Police Establishment v. S.K. Lokraiya, AIR 1972 SC 2548 (2551). [Arms Act, (46 of 1950), s. 125]

The word 'jurisdiction' implies the court or tribunal with the judicial power to hear and determine a cause, and such tribunal cannot exist except by authority of law. Jurisdiction always emanates directly and immediately from the law; it is a power which nobody on whom the law has not conferred it can exercise. In other words, 'jurisdic-tion' has reference to the power of the court or tribunal over the subject-matter, over the res or property in contest, and to the authority of the court to render the judgement or decree it assumes to make, CIT v. Pearl Mech Engineering Foundry Works (P) Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 597 (603).