Rejection of judicial hierarchy arguments in statutory jurisdiction determinations

Judicial decisions cannot deviate from explicit statutory definitions based on subjective perceptions of court status, judicial hierarchy, or supposed jurisdictional anomalies. Arguments suggesting that an inferior Civil Court should not extend the mandate or substitute an arbitrator appointed by a superior High Court are fundamentally flawed. In a system governed by the rule of law, jurisdiction flows exclusively from express constitutional provisions or legislative enactments, not from notions of judicial prestige. When Parliament specifically empowers the Principal Civil Court under Section 29A read with Section 2(1)(e), that statutory mandate overrides any perceived hierarchical awkwardness. Courts cannot substitute legislative intention with judicial notions of status or conflict of power. The authority to render binding determinations is defined solely by statutory conferment. Therefore, a principal Civil Court exercising power under Section 29A operates entirely within its lawful statutory competence. Hierarchical considerations cannot be invoked to override clear and unambiguous statutory definitions. (Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors. | 2026 INSC 92)