General principles affecting jurisdiction of courts and the extent of exclusion

Introduction
The court of law has been assigned powers to deal with the cases before it.
Different powers are given to different kinds of courts or judicial bodies; e.g., the
civil courts have the power to decide only on cases of civil nature. Such powers of
a court of law to deal with matters are also called the jurisdiction of the court.
Thus, the jurisdiction of a court is the power of that court to hear and determine the
subject matter in controversy between the parties to the suit.

It is important to note that the court of law is conferred with such jurisdiction only
according to a statute; e.g., the jurisdiction of the civil court is as per Section 9 of
the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, to try all suits of civil nature.

This article discusses how to interpret statutes that confer jurisdiction on the courts
and the principles related to the interpretation of such statutes.

Meaning of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction means the authority or power by which a court can decide a matter as
per the provisions of statutes. If a court declaring a judgement for any dispute does
not have jurisdiction over such a dispute, then its judgement is null and can be
ignored.

Types of jurisdictions

The jurisdiction can be of many types, as follows:

 Territorial jurisdiction:
 Pecuniary jurisdiction:
 Subject matter jurisdiction:
 In addition to the above types, superior courts also exercise original
jurisdiction, advisory jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of courts can be interpreted with the help of a few basic principles,
which talk about the exclusion of jurisdiction, the jurisdiction conferred by
common law, and specific statutes.

 General principles affecting jurisdiction of courts

 Exclusion must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied

This is the first and foremost principle related to the interpretation of the
jurisdiction of courts. It simply means that if there is any exclusion or negation
pertaining to the jurisdiction, then it must be very clearly explained in the
provision and no ambiguity related to such an exclusion can be allowed.

Therefore, the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts and conferring

jurisdiction on tribunals for specific matters must be strictly construed.

E.g., Section 8 of the Family Courts Act of 1984 excludes the jurisdiction of civil
courts when there is a family court.

It is the power of the legislature to confer the jurisdiction of civil courts partly or
wholly on any other tribunal for the purpose of addressing specific subject matter.

 The extent of exclusion

The extent of exclusion can be interpreted with the help of the following three
elements:

Construction of exclusionary clauses

The court of law must refer to the clause specifically talking about the exclusion
without any ambiguity. Any other construction contrary to the clause would lead to
nullity.
Rule of conclusive evidence

The legislation has the power to enact a statute to declare something as conclusive
proof to such an extent that it becomes a non-justiciable matter.

E.g., if a legislative enactment proof of A is made conclusive evidence of B, then

the court is bound to consider the existence of B the moment it realises the
existence of A. Such evidence cannot be questioned in court as it becomes
conclusive evidence.

Along with the above conditions, it is also pertinent to understand some

presumptions as to the jurisdiction of courts when encountering international
regulations.

Presumptions regarding the jurisdiction of courts

 In the process of interpreting any municipal law, if it is found that such

interpretation is in conflict with any international law, then the court will not
give it such an effect.

 There is a presumption that an Act of Parliament generally applies within its

territory only unless provided otherwise. The legislature may not recognise
the rules of international law, but these are the questions of policy with
which domestic courts are concerned.
 The jurisdiction of superior courts is conferred by the Constitution of India
and not by any statutory enactment. Hence, it cannot be taken away by
simply enacting a statute.
 It is also important to note that the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of
superior courts should not be mistaken for being excluded simply because
the subordinate courts enjoy special jurisdiction.

Conclusion
In India, there are various statutes in operation to decide on the jurisdiction of
various courts and tribunals, e.g. Family Courts Act for Family Court, Income Tax
Act for Income Tax Tribunal, etc. Due to the complexity of the judicial system, it
has become necessary to interpret the statutes with care not to offend the
jurisdiction of other authorities and also to avoid nullity.
The efficient observance of principles for interpreting the jurisdiction of courts will
definitely help avoid loss of time and money. Moreover, it is also important to
understand the jurisdiction of superior courts as conferred by the Constitution of
India and one must not confuse it with the exclusion of jurisdiction.