Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532.

Author: Shreya Arey, DES' Shri Navalamal Firodia Law College, Pune University

---

INTRODUCTION

The case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, 1960, concerns the territorial limits of a High Court’s power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. The issue was whether a State High Court can issue writs, orders, or directions against the Central Government or any Central Ministry. The dispute arose when Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh approached the Jammu & Kashmir High Court to challenge an order of premature retirement issued by the Ministry of Defence in New Delhi. Under Article 226, a High Court’s jurisdiction is confined to its territorial boundaries, and because the seat of the Central Government is in New Delhi, it falls outside the territorial reach of other State High Courts. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition on that ground; hence, Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh appealed to the Supreme Court of India. A Constitutional Bench of 7 judges, by a 5:2 majority, adopted a strict literal interpretation of Article 226 and ruled against the appellant, Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant, Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh, was an officer in the Jammu & Kashmir State Forces. In 1949, these forces were merged into the Ministry of Defence of the Union of India. As per his terms of service, he had the right to serve until he attained the age of 53 that was supposed to be in 1961.

2. In 1954, the Ministry of Defence issued a letter of premature retirement, although there were no charges, misconduct, or complaints alleged against him.

3. Due to this unjust order, Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh filed a writ petition in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court under Article 32(2A) of the Constitution, which granted the J&K High Court writ powers similar to those under Article 226 of the Constitution. He stated that the order violated his right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

4. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition because it did not have territorial jurisdiction to issue orders to the Ministry of Defence of the Central Government, situated in New Delhi. Hence, Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Does a State High Court have the power to issue orders or writs to the Union Government under Article 226 or Article 32(2A), given that the physical location of the Central Government is beyond the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction?

2. Does the High Court’s power depend on where the seat of the government is physically located, does it extend to anywhere the government operates, or where the order actually takes effect?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh’s Arguments (The Appellant)-

1. The counsel for the appellant argued that the Central Government operates throughout the entire territory of India, and not just Delhi. Therefore, it is considered to be “present” within the jurisdiction of every High Court where its orders are issued or where a citizen’s rights are infringed.

2. Article 226 mentions "including in appropriate cases any Government." According to this clause, High Courts can issue orders to any government, including the Union Government.

3. If only the Delhi and Punjab High Courts can issue orders to the Central Government, then it is unjust for the citizens living thousands of miles away to travel to Delhi just to protect their fundamental rights.

Union of India and State of J&K’s Arguments (The Respondents)-

1. The counsel for the respondents, Solicitor General of India, argued by sticking to the literal meaning of Article 226, stating that the person or authority to whom the writ is issued must be within the territories over which the High Court exercises jurisdiction.

2. A government is situated where its seat is physically located and where its decision-making officers are located.

3. The Supreme Court has held in precedents that the physical location of the authority shall determine the High Court that shall have jurisdiction.

DECISION AND RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE COURT

1. The Bench of 7 judges, with a 5:2 majority, ruled against the appellant, Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh. The majority of judges stated that Article 226 explicitly mentions that the authority passing the order must be physically located within the territorial limits of the High Court. It does not matter where a citizen resides or where the order takes effect; what matters is where the physical seat of the government is located. 

2. The Court agreed that forcing citizens to travel to Delhi is causing hardship, but it cannot go beyond the Constitution and rewrite laws, which is the duty of Parliament.

3. Two judges disagreed with the majority. They argued that the government does not have a “physical address” like an ordinary citizen and it functions throughout the territory of India. Hence, citizens should be able to avail their rights irrespective of the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts.

ANALYSIS 

This case is based on the application of Article 226, which explains the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to issue writs, orders and directions. According to the facts, the appellant raised a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of an Article in the Constitution; a clause intended to protect citizens' rights was, in reality, severely restricting their access to constitutional remedies. 

India is a quasi-federal government with a unitary bias. The Central Government has overriding powers across the entire territory of India; hence it should not be equated to a private individual or a local state authority having a “physical address”. 

This case also highlights a struggle between legislative supremacy and judicial interpretation. By examining the ratio decidendi, the judges agreed that the Article was creating a hardship for citizens; however, they could not make a decision by overriding their powers and not adhering to the plain text of our higher law, the Constitution. With respect to the rules of interpretation of statutes, the Judiciary must stick to literal interpretation; however, if such interpretation is causing extreme hardship or legal absurdity, then the Court must use the Golden Rule of interpretation and construe the statute broadly.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

After this ruling, citizens faced many hardships, as to challenge an order of the Central Government or any Central Ministry, they had to file a petition in the High Courts having territorial jurisdiction over New Delhi. The Parliament recognized this and enacted the 15^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, which added Article 226(2) to the Constitution. 

Article 22(2) expanded the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts. Any State Court has the power to issue writs or orders against the Central Government or any Central Ministry or any authority if the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, regardless of where the seat of the government is physically located.

This amendment restored the balance between legislative supremacy and judicial interpretation and the doctrine of separation of powers. Citizens can avail their rights by approaching their State High Courts without any territorial barriers.

SCOPE FOR REFORMS

This case demonstrates how literal interpretation by the Judiciary can lead to injustices. Whenever the judiciary encounters constitutional or statutory provisions that impact fundamental rights, it should adopt a broad, purposive interpretation rather than strict literal interpretation. Amending the Constitution or enacting new legislation is a very complex and time-consuming process. Citizens should not be forced to wait for the Parliament to make new laws whenever a procedural barrier arises. Instead, as a guardian of the Constitution, the Judiciary must look beyond the text to ensure that the true intention of the framers is achieved and the fundamental rights of the citizens are not compromised by procedural defects.

CONCLUSION

The Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, 1960 is a landmark judgment regarding the High Court’s power to issue writs under Article 22 of the Constitution. It answers fundamental questions about the powers of State High Courts to issue orders against the Central Government and its ministries. The ruling also exposed a friction between rigid liberal interpretation and practical access to constitutional remedies. This case caused a lot of hardships to citizens, which ultimately led to Parliament enacting the 15^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, which added Article 226(2) to the Constitution and extended the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts. Further, the judgment depicts that in a quasi-federal system, the Judiciary must focus on purposive interpretation to ensure that citizens can access constitutional remedies without any procedural hurdles.

REFERENCES

1. INDIA CONST. § 226.

2. INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl. 2A (repealed).

3. INDIA CONST. § 226, cl. 2.

4. INDIA CONST. art. 226, amended by The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.

5. Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532.

6. K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207.

   IndianKanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166220/.(last visited Aug. 21, 2026).