In Brief
The Maharashtra Chess Association challenged the Bombay High Court's decision that a clause in the All India Chess Federation's constitution, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Chennai courts, ousted the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that private contractual agreements cannot absolutely bar a High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226. While an alternate remedy or forum may be considered as one factor in deciding whether to exercise discretion, it creates no legal bar. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is fundamentally discretionary and must be examined holistically, applying principles like forum non conveniens, not through reliance on contractual clauses alone.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.