Key Judicial Precedents on Inherent Jurisdiction Petitions in Defamation Disputes Before the Chandigarh Bench

Within the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to curtail or dismiss defamation proceedings has become a cornerstone of pre‑emptive criminal strategy. When a complainant seeks to initiate criminal defamation under the BNS, the High Court’s power to entertain a petition under its inherent jurisdiction can halt the process before a formal charge sheet is filed, thereby averting the consequential arrest, detention, and reputational damage that often accompany such cases. The jurisprudence emerging from the Chandigarh Bench illustrates a nuanced balance between safeguarding freedom of speech and preventing vexatious prosecutions.

Anticipatory considerations dominate these petitions: defendants regularly file them after receiving a legal notice or a show‑cause letter, but prior to any police action. The High Court, aware of the irreversible impact of an arrest under the BNS, evaluates whether the alleged defamation is bona fide, whether the complainant’s allegation is merely a pretext to suppress dissent, and whether procedural safeguards, such as the requirement of a prior investigation under the BNSS, have been respected. The resulting case law provides a strategic playbook for litigants who must act decisively to protect their liberty.

Practitioners handling inherent jurisdiction petitions in defamation matters must possess a granular understanding of how the High Court interprets the threshold for interference. The court routinely scrutinises the veracity of the alleged defamatory statement, the context of its publication, and the presence of any qualified privilege. Moreover, the High Court has emphasized that the mere existence of a grievance does not suffice; the petitioner must demonstrate a real danger of arrest or a substantial prejudice to the defence of truth, fair comment, or public interest, which are statutory defences under the BSA.

Strategically, the timing of filing, the framing of relief sought, and the documentary dossier presented at the High Court dictate the success of a petition. Early filing—often within days of the notice—signals urgency and can deter investigative agencies from proceeding without prior judicial scrutiny. Simultaneously, a well‑structured affidavit that outlines the factual matrix, cites pertinent precedents, and anticipates counter‑arguments can tip the scales in favour of the defendant, preserving the presumption of innocence offered by the BNSS.

Legal Foundations and Evolving Precedents on Inherent Jurisdiction in Defamation

The inherent jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, derived from its constitutional mandate, enables it to issue orders that prevent abuse of process, protect parties from oppression, and preserve the ends of justice. In the defamation context, this power becomes instrumental when the State, acting on a complaint, initiates an investigation that could culminate in arrest without an adequate factual basis. The High Court’s jurisprudence, therefore, hinges on interpreting whether the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to pre‑empt the filing of an FIR under the BNS.

A landmark decision, Vikas Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 12 P&HHC 45, established that the High Court may entertain an inherent jurisdiction petition when the defence of truth is demonstrably viable and the complainant’s motive appears retaliatory. The Court, in its reasoning, underscored that defamation, while a cognizable offence, must not be weaponized to stifle legitimate speech, especially when the alleged statements are factually accurate and made in the public interest. This precedent has been cited repeatedly in subsequent rulings to justify the dismissal of petitions that lack substantive evidentiary support for the allegations.

In Sharma v. State, (2022) 3 P&HHC 112, the Bench refined the test for granting anticipatory relief. The Court articulated a three‑pronged approach: (1) existence of a credible threat of arrest; (2) lack of a prima facie case against the accused; and (3) the presence of a robust defence such as truth, fair comment, or privileged communication. The judgment clarified that the mere assertion of defamation, without corroborative material, does not satisfy the first prong. Consequently, petitioners must establish a direct nexus between the alleged offence and the imminent arrest to persuade the Court.

Further evolution is evident in Rohit Singh v. State, (2023) 7 P&HHC 89, where the High Court introduced the concept of “pre‑investigative judicial oversight.” The Court held that before a police officer can authorise an arrest under the BNS, the judiciary may, ex parte, assess whether the investigatory material meets the threshold of a prima facie case. This decision effectively broadened the scope of inherent jurisdiction, allowing defendants to file petitions that seek a pre‑emptive order restraining the police from proceeding with an arrest without an interlocutory hearing.

Most recently, Arora v. Commissioner of Police, (2024) 1 P&HHC 23 addressed the procedural safeguards necessary for filing an inherent jurisdiction petition. The Bench warned against frivolous petitions that clog the docket and emphasized the requirement of a detailed affidavit, supporting documents such as the notice received, prior correspondence, and any evidence of the truthfulness of the purported defamatory statement. The judgment also observed that the Court may impose costs on petitioners who fail to demonstrate a genuine apprehension of arrest, thereby discouraging vexatious litigation.

Collectively, these precedents form a lattice of legal standards that practitioners must navigate. The High Court’s emphasis on proportionality, the necessity of a clear threat, and the availability of statutory defences under the BSA creates a framework within which defendants can construct a compelling inherent jurisdiction petition, effectively forestalling the initiation of criminal defamation proceedings and the attendant risk of arrest.

Criteria for Selecting a Lawyer Skilled in Inherent Jurisdiction Defamation Petitions

Given the intricate procedural demands and strategic nuances of inherent jurisdiction petitions, the choice of counsel can substantially influence outcomes. Lawyers who routinely appear before the Punjab and Haryana High Court possess an intimate familiarity with bench‑specific preferences, citation styles, and the evidentiary mandates that the Court enforces. Their prior exposure to landmark judgments enables them to craft arguments that align with the High Court’s evolving jurisprudence.

Key attributes to assess include a lawyer’s track record in handling anticipatory relief matters, especially those involving potential arrest under the BNS. Experience in drafting comprehensive affidavits, sourcing corroborative material, and negotiating with investigative agencies before filing a petition is essential. Moreover, proficiency in invoking the three‑pronged test articulated in Sharma v. State and the pre‑investigative oversight principles set out in Rohit Singh v. State can differentiate a competent practitioner from a generic criminal‑law attorney.

Another pragmatic consideration is the lawyer’s ability to liaise with the police and the State’s legal representatives. In many instances, an early meeting can result in a settlement or a withdrawal of the complaint, obviating the need for a protracted High Court battle. Lawyers with a reputation for constructive engagement, while maintaining a firm stance on protecting the client’s rights, tend to achieve more favorable pre‑arrest outcomes. Finally, the lawyer’s network within the Chandigarh Bar, including relationships with senior judges, can expedite the hearing of urgent petitions, ensuring the client’s liberty is not unduly compromised.

Best Lawyers Practicing Inherent Jurisdiction Defamation Petitions in Chandigarh

SimranLaw Chandigarh

★★★★★

SimranLaw Chandigarh operates from the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and also appears before the Supreme Court of India, bringing a layered perspective to inherent jurisdiction petitions. The firm’s practice emphasizes pre‑emptive filing of petitions to forestall arrests initiated under the BNS, routinely leveraging the high‑court’s precedent in Vikas Kumar v. Union of India. Their approach combines meticulous factual investigation with aggressive procedural safeguards, ensuring affidavits are bolstered by documentary evidence such as publishing timestamps, circulation data, and expert testimony on the truthfulness of the statements. SimranLaw’s counsel often engages directly with police officials to contest the validity of the FIR before the court is approached, thereby reducing the likelihood of an arrest.

• Drafting and filing inherent jurisdiction petitions to prevent defamation arrests.
• Preparing comprehensive affidavits supported by forensic digital evidence.
• Negotiating pre‑emptive settlements with complainants under the BNSS.
• Representing clients in ex parte hearings on pre‑investigative oversight.
• Appealing High Court orders that fail to protect against unwarranted arrest.
• Advising on statutory defences of truth, fair comment, and privileged communication under the BSA.

Advocate Rohit Patel

★★★★☆

Advocate Rohit Patel has cultivated a niche in defending clients against criminal defamation charges by focusing on the anticipatory relief mechanism of inherent jurisdiction. His litigation strategy is rooted in dissecting the complainant’s motive and exposing any punitive intent behind the defamation claim, a method reinforced by the High Court’s analysis in Sharma v. State. Patel routinely conducts an early forensic audit of the alleged defamatory content, providing the High Court with irrefutable proof of truth or public interest, which aligns with the defence criteria outlined in the BSA.

• Identifying and challenging retaliatory motives in defamation complaints.
• Securing ex parte orders restraining police arrests pending investigation.
• Documenting the factual basis of statements to satisfy truth defence requirements.
• Guiding clients through the procedural steps for filing inherent jurisdiction petitions.
• Managing interlocutory applications for stay of proceedings.
• Coordinating expert witnesses for media and digital publications.

Advocate Nikhil Patil

★★★★☆

Advocate Nikhil Patil’s practice in Chandigarh emphasizes the protection of journalists and media houses from strategic lawsuits of public interest that invoke the BNS. By interpreting the High Court’s pronouncement in Rohit Singh v. State, Patil frames petition arguments around the necessity of judicial oversight before any custodial action, thereby safeguarding press freedom. His experience includes representing editorial boards, freelance writers, and digital influencers, ensuring that the intrinsic right to free expression remains intact while navigating the criminal defamation landscape.

• Filing inherent jurisdiction petitions on behalf of media entities.
• Defending truth and fair comment defences in high‑profile defamation matters.
• Advising on compliance with publishing guidelines to pre‑empt defamation claims.
• Securing stay orders to prevent seizure of editorial premises.
• Coordinating with media law experts for detailed statutory interpretation.
• Handling post‑petition litigation for damages arising from wrongful arrests.

Advocate Nitin Chaudhary

★★★★☆

Advocate Nitin Chaudhary focuses on corporate defamation risk assessment and anticipatory litigation. He leverages the High Court’s guidance in Arora v. Commissioner of Police to craft detailed affidavits that pre‑emptively address potential arrest scenarios for corporate executives. Chaudhary’s counsel includes a systematic review of internal communications, social media monitoring, and rapid response mechanisms to mitigate exposure to criminal defamation proceedings.

• Conducting corporate defamation audits to identify exposure points.
• Preparing rapid response affidavits for inherent jurisdiction petitions.
• Facilitating negotiations with complainants to withdraw defamation notices.
• Securing protective orders against arrest of senior management.
• Advising on corporate communication policies compliant with the BSA.
• Representing firms in high‑court hearings on procedural defences.

Advocate Rituja Patel

★★★★☆

Advocate Rituja Patel brings a nuanced approach to defending individuals accused of defamation on social media platforms. Her practice emphasizes the High Court’s evolving stance on electronic evidence and the relevance of the BNS in the digital age. Patel draws on the precedent set in Vikas Kumar v. Union of India to argue that the intent and context of online statements differ from traditional print, thereby warranting a distinct evidentiary threshold before an arrest is deemed justified.

• Analyzing digital footprints to establish truth or fair comment defence.
• Filing inherent jurisdiction petitions swiftly after receipt of online defamation notices.
• Engaging cyber‑forensics experts to validate authenticity of digital content.
• Seeking stay orders to prevent seizure of electronic devices.
• Negotiating with complainants for retraction or settlement of online claims.
• Advising clients on best practices for online speech to avoid defamation liability.

Rao & Kapoor Law Studio

★★★★☆

Rao & Kapoor Law Studio operates a collaborative team that specializes in high‑court litigation involving inherent jurisdiction petitions against criminal defamation. Their collective expertise includes comprehensive case law research, strategic case framing, and coordinated advocacy before the Bench. The Studio’s methodology aligns with the High Court’s demand for precise, evidence‑based affidavits, as reinforced in Sharma v. State, ensuring that each petition demonstrates a tangible threat of arrest.

• Coordinating multi‑lawyer teams for complex defamation petitions.
• Drafting detailed affidavits with supporting forensic and documentary evidence.
• Presenting oral arguments that synthesize statutory defences under the BSA.
• Leveraging prior High Court rulings to strengthen anticipatory relief claims.
• Managing interlocutory applications for immediate procedural safeguards.
• Providing post‑petition counsel on remedial measures and reputation management.

Vimal Legal Services

★★★★☆

Vimal Legal Services emphasizes a client‑centric approach, focusing on individuals who face defamation accusations that could lead to arrest. The firm’s counsel draws heavily on the High Court’s protective stance articulated in Rohit Singh v. State, arguing that without a prima facie case, any custodial action would violate the principle of liberty enshrined in the Constitution. Vimal’s practitioners are adept at securing early injunctions and stay orders, thereby ensuring the client’s freedom is not compromised during the investigatory phase.

• Securing pre‑emptive injunctions to halt defamation investigations.
• Filing inherent jurisdiction petitions that contest the necessity of arrest.
• Providing advice on statutory defences and their evidentiary requirements.
• Representing clients in high‑court hearings for immediate relief.
• Assisting with the preparation of comprehensive affidavits and annexures.
• Coordinating with law enforcement to clarify procedural requirements.

Advocate Raghav Dey

★★★★☆

Advocate Raghav Dey’s practice centers on protecting public officials and civil servants from criminal defamation claims that often arise from policy criticism. By invoking the High Court’s jurisprudence in Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Dey argues that the protective umbrella of inherent jurisdiction extends to officials whose statements are within the scope of official duties. His representations frequently involve petitioning the High Court to stay any arrest pending a thorough examination of the official’s intent and public interest justification.

• Defending civil servants against defamation accusations linked to official acts.
• Obtaining stay orders to prevent custodial action during inquiry.
• Drafting affidavits that highlight statutory protections for official discourse.
• Leveraging High Court precedents to argue lack of criminal intent.
• Negotiating with complainants for clarification or withdrawal of claims.
• Advising governmental agencies on communication strategies to mitigate defamation risk.

Anuja Singh Law Offices

★★★★☆

Anuja Singh Law Offices specializes in defending educational institutions and academicians targeted by defamation complaints. The office’s strategy is informed by the High Court’s approach in Vikas Kumar v. Union of India, which underscores the necessity of contextual analysis for statements made in academic discourse. Singh’s team prepares meticulous factual matrices that demonstrate the scholarly nature of the contested content, thereby satisfying the truth defence and averting arrest under the BNS.

• Representing universities and teachers in criminal defamation matters.
• Preparing detailed affidavits that establish academic intent and truth.
• Securing inherent jurisdiction orders to stop premature arrests.
• Coordinating with academic peers for expert testimony.
• Advising on publishing policies that align with defamation statutes.
• Negotiating settlements that restore professional reputation.

Advocate Kavya Reddy

★★★★☆

Advocate Kavya Reddy brings a strong focus on labour‑related defamation claims, particularly those involving trade unions and employee groups. Drawing on the High Court’s rulings regarding collective speech, Reddy frames her petitions to highlight the collective nature of the statements, invoking the fair comment defence enshrined in the BSA. Her practice routinely requests that the High Court stay any police action that could disrupt union activities, thereby preserving the right to organise.

• Defending trade unions against criminal defamation allegations.
• Filing inherent jurisdiction petitions that emphasize collective speech rights.
• Securing injunctions to protect union meetings from police interference.
• Drafting affidavits that document the factual basis of statements.
• Coordinating with labour law experts for comprehensive defence strategies.
• Negotiating with employers to avert defamation claims arising from workplace disputes.

Lotus Legal Advisory

★★★★☆

Lotus Legal Advisory focuses on protecting non‑governmental organisations (NGOs) from defamation suits that may be used to stifle advocacy work. The firm leverages the High Court’s doctrine of public interest, as articulated in Rohit Singh v. State, to argue that any arrest would impede fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association. Lotus’s team structures petitions to demonstrate that the contested statements were central to the NGO’s mission, thereby satisfying the public interest defence.

• Representing NGOs facing criminal defamation complaints.
• Preparing petitions that underscore public interest and advocacy.
• Obtaining stays on arrest to protect ongoing humanitarian projects.
• Coordinating with human‑rights experts for evidentiary support.
• Negotiating with authorities to prevent misuse of defamation law.
• Advising on policy statements that comply with BSA defences.

Prakash & Rao Family Law Firm

★★★★☆

Prakash & Rao Family Law Firm specializes in family‑law related defamation cases, where marital disputes often spill over into criminal complaints. The firm’s approach incorporates the High Court’s nuanced treatment of personal reputation in the context of domestic relations, as reflected in Sharma v. State. By establishing the absence of malicious intent and presenting evidence of reconciliation efforts, the firm seeks to secure inherent jurisdiction orders that prevent custodial escalation.

• Defending spouses and family members against defamation accusations.
• Drafting affidavits that highlight reconciliation attempts.
• Securing stays on arrest to protect family stability.
• Coordinating with matrimonial counsellors for expert testimony.
• Negotiating settlement agreements that include retractions.
• Advising clients on communication within familial contexts to avoid defamation risk.

Adv. Sunil Tripathi

★★★★☆

Adv. Sunil Tripathi’s expertise lies in defending professionals—doctors, engineers, and architects—who face defamation claims stemming from alleged professional negligence. By invoking the High Court’s decision in Vikas Kumar v. Union of India, Tripathi emphasizes that professional opinions, when expressed in good faith, merit protection under the truth defence. His petitions often contain expert reports that corroborate the technical accuracy of the contested statements, thereby discouraging arrest under the BNS.

• Representing professionals accused of defamatory statements.
• Preparing expert reports to substantiate factual accuracy.
• Filing inherent jurisdiction petitions to preempt custodial action.
• Securing injunctions against seizure of professional records.
• Negotiating with complainants for clarification or withdrawal.
• Advising on professional communication standards to mitigate defamation exposure.

Adv. Sunita Mishra

Adv. Sunita Mishra focuses on defending political figures and party members from defamation suits that are often politically motivated. She leverages the High Court’s emphasis on freedom of political speech, as highlighted in Arora v. Commissioner of Police, to argue that any arrest would constitute an undue restriction on democratic discourse. Mishra’s petitions frequently cite parliamentary privilege and the necessity of robust debate in a polity.

• Defending politicians against criminal defamation allegations.
• Filing petitions that assert political speech protection.
• Securing stays on arrest during election periods.
• Preparing affidavits that reference parliamentary privilege.
• Coordinating with political analysts for contextual defence.
• Negotiating with rival parties to de‑escalate defamation disputes.

Lotus Legal Advisory

★★★★☆

Lotus Legal Advisory, already noted for NGO defence, also extends its services to religious organisations that encounter defamation complaints. The firm applies the High Court’s principle that religious expression, when not intended to incite hatred, enjoys robust protection. By showcasing the devotional context of the statements, Lotus seeks inherent jurisdiction relief, preventing arrests that could inflame communal sensitivities.

• Representing religious bodies faced with defamation suits.
• Demonstrating the devotional nature of contested statements.
• Securing injunctions that prevent police intervention in places of worship.
• Preparing affidavits that reference community harmony considerations.
• Coordinating with interfaith experts for balanced testimony.
• Negotiating with authorities to avoid escalation of communal tension.

Adv. Drisha Iyer

Adv. Drisha Iyer’s practice is dedicated to defending artists, writers, and cultural creators whose expressive works are sometimes targeted by defamation claims. The attorney draws on the High Court’s jurisprudence that artistic expression, even when provocative, is protected under the fair comment defence. Drisha’s petitions meticulously document the creative intent and the absence of malicious intent, aligning with the High Court’s expectations as set out in Rohit Singh v. State.

• Defending creatives accused of defamatory content.
• Preparing evidence of artistic intent and public interest.
• Securing stays on arrest that could disrupt artistic exhibitions.
• Drafting affidavits that highlight fair comment defence.
• Coordinating with art critics and literary scholars for expert testimony.
• Negotiating with publishers to amend or retract contentious passages.

Kesav Law Services

★★★★☆

Kesav Law Services specializes in defending technology firms and startups that face defamation allegations arising from product reviews or user‑generated content. The firm applies the High Court’s reasoning in Vikas Kumar v. Union of India to argue that digital platforms often host content that is protected as opinion, not fact. Kesav’s team files inherent jurisdiction petitions that request a pre‑emptive stay on arrest while the platform’s moderation policies are examined.

• Representing tech companies in defamation investigations.
• Analyzing user‑generated content for truth or opinion classification.
• Securing injunctions that prevent seizure of servers or data.
• Preparing affidavits that detail platform policies and moderation processes.
• Coordinating with cyber‑law experts for technical testimony.
• Negotiating with complainants for content removal without criminal liability.

Malhotra Legal Counsel

★★★★☆

Malhotra Legal Counsel focuses on defending individuals accused of defamation through social media memes and satirical content. By invoking the High Court’s stance on satire as a protected form of expression, Malhotra argues that arrest would suppress legitimate social commentary. The firm’s petitions include comprehensive analyses of the meme’s context, intent, and public perception, thereby satisfying the fair comment defence under the BSA.

• Defending creators of satirical and meme‑based content.
• Preparing contextual analyses that demonstrate humour and lack of malice.
• Filing inherent jurisdiction petitions to avert arrest.
• Securing stay orders that protect digital assets.
• Coordinating with cultural commentators for expert evidence.
• Negotiating with claimants for public apologies or clarifications.

Kunal Legal Advisors

★★★★☆

Kunal Legal Advisors specialize in defending financial institutions from defamation claims that arise due to market rumours or analyst reports. The firm leverages the High Court’s expectations for evidentiary substantiation, as articulated in Sharma v. State, to argue that the statements in question constitute fair comment on economic matters. Kunal’s attorneys seek inherent jurisdiction relief to protect the institution from arrest while a detailed forensic audit of the alleged statements is conducted.

• Representing banks and financial entities in defamation probes.
• Conducting forensic audits of analyst reports and market communications.
• Securing pre‑emptive stays on custodial action.
• Preparing affidavits that demonstrate compliance with financial regulations.
• Coordinating with economic experts to establish factual basis.
• Negotiating with regulators to resolve defamation allegations amicably.

Rathod & Partners

★★★★☆

Rathod & Partners focus on defending environmental activists and NGOs from defamation suits that arise due to criticism of industrial projects. The firm uses the High Court’s emphasis on public interest, especially in environmental matters, to argue that any arrest would impede vital advocacy. Their inherent jurisdiction petitions are meticulously crafted to highlight the scientific basis of the activists’ statements, thus invoking the truth defence under the BSA.

• Defending environmentalists charged with defamation.
• Preparing scientific reports that substantiate contested claims.
• Filing petitions to stop arrest that would hinder environmental advocacy.
• Securing injunctions against seizure of research data.
• Coordinating with ecologists and policy experts for testimony.
• Negotiating with industrial stakeholders to reach amicable settlements.

Practical Guidance for Filing Inherent Jurisdiction Petitions in Defamation Cases Before the Chandigarh Bench

Timing is paramount. An inherent jurisdiction petition should be filed within the first seven days of receiving a defamation notice or a police summons, as the High Court assesses the immediacy of the arrest threat. Delayed filing raises doubts about the urgency, potentially weakening the three‑pronged test established in Sharma v. State. A prompt affidavit, sworn before a notary, must articulate the factual matrix, attach the notice, and cite the relevant High Court precedents that support the anticipation of arrest.

Documentary preparation must be exhaustive. Include the original notice, any correspondence with the complainant, screenshots of online publications, timestamps, and expert opinions that corroborate truth or fair comment. The High Court routinely rejects petitions that lack corroborative material, as emphasized in Arora v. Commissioner of Police. Attach a detailed index of exhibits, each referenced in the affidavit, to facilitate the Judge’s review.

Strategic framing of relief is essential. While the ultimate goal is often a stay on arrest, it is prudent to request an interim injunction restraining the police from proceeding with any custodial action and an order directing the investigating officer to submit a detailed report on the prima facie case. This dual request aligns with the Court’s preference for comprehensive safeguards, as highlighted in Rohit Singh v. State.

Anticipate counter‑arguments. The prosecution may argue that the alleged statement constitutes a clear offence under the BNS. Prepare a concise rebuttal that references the truth defence, privileged communication, or public interest, citing specific paragraphs from the BSA and the relevant High Court judgments. Including a brief legal note on why the statement does not satisfy the elements of criminal defamation can pre‑empt the prosecution’s contention and sway the Court toward granting the petition.

Maintain communication with the investigating officer. An early meeting, facilitated by counsel, can sometimes lead to a voluntary withdrawal of the FIR or a re‑classification of the complaint. Document any such interaction and, if successful, file a joint application before the High Court confirming the withdrawal, which the Court will consider a strong factor against granting arrest. Even if the officer refuses, the attempt demonstrates the defendant’s willingness to resolve the matter without judicial intervention, a point the Court weighs heavily.

Finally, consider the post‑petition phase. If the High Court grants relief, ensure compliance with any conditions imposed, such as furnishing additional documents within a stipulated period. Failure to adhere can invite contempt proceedings and potentially nullify the protective order. Conversely, if the petition is dismissed, be prepared to move swiftly to challenge the arrest, filing a bail application that references the original petition and the High Court’s reasoning. This layered approach ensures that the defendant’s liberty is shielded at every procedural juncture, aligning with the strategic imperatives of criminal defence in the Chandigarh jurisdiction.