Article 226 of the Indian Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcing fundamental and other legal rights. This provision ensures judicial oversight over administrative actions, safeguarding citizens’ rights.

MEANING AND SCOPE OF ARTICLE 226

Article 226 grants High Courts the authority to issue directions, orders, or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or authority within their territorial jurisdiction. This power extends beyond the enforcement of fundamental rights, encompassing other legal rights as well.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The origin of writ jurisdiction in India traces back to British colonial rule, particularly the Indian High Courts Act of 1861, which established High Courts in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras with the authority to issue writs. This framework was further refined in the Government of India Act of 1935 and eventually incorporated into the Indian Constitution as Article 226.

TYPES OF WRITS UNDER ARTICLE 226

1. Habeas Corpus:
   Aimed at releasing a person unlawfully detained, ensuring personal liberty. In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the primary purpose of the writ is to ensure the release of a person from illegal detention.

2. Mandamus:
   Commands a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to fulfill. In State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin, the court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the state to consider the respondent’s application for a license, highlighting the writ’s role in compelling authorities to act.

3. Prohibition:
   Restrains a subordinate court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction. In East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, the Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition against the Collector, preventing him from acting beyond his authority.

4. Certiorari:
   Used to quash orders of authorities acting without or in excess of jurisdiction. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, the Supreme Court quashed an election tribunal’s order, illustrating the application of certiorari.

5. Quo Warranto:
   Challenges the legality of a person’s claim to a public office. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, the Supreme Court examined the validity of an appointment to a university chair, demonstrating the use of quo warranto.

COMPARISON WITH ARTICLE 32

While both Articles 32 and 226 empower courts to issue writs, Article 32 is confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights and is available only in the Supreme Court. In contrast, Article 226 has a broader scope, allowing High Courts to address violations of fundamental as well as other legal rights.

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Article 226(2) extends the jurisdiction of High Courts to cases where the cause of action arises, wholly or partly, within their territorial limits, even if the authority or person against whom the writ is issued is located outside. This provision ensures flexibility in addressing grievances.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING WRIT JURISDICTION

• Locus Standi:
  Traditionally, the petitioner must have a direct interest in the case. However, Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have relaxed this requirement, allowing broader access to justice.

• Alternative Remedy:
  Generally, writs are not issued if an effective alternative remedy exists. However, in cases involving fundamental rights violations, this rule may be relaxed.

• Delay and Laches:
  Petitions should be filed without unreasonable delay. Courts may deny relief if the petitioner is found guilty of undue delay.

LANDMARK CASE LAWS

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997):
  The Supreme Court affirmed that the power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed.

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984):
  The court expanded the scope of Article 226 by entertaining a PIL for the release of bonded laborers, emphasizing the role of writ jurisdiction in social justice.

LIMITATIONS AND SELF-IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS

High Courts exercise writ jurisdiction with caution, refraining from interfering in matters involving:

• Highly disputed facts,
• Contractual obligations, or
• Cases where efficacious alternative remedies are available.

This judicial restraint ensures that writ jurisdiction is invoked appropriately.

CONCLUSION

Article 226 serves as a vital tool for upholding the rule of law in India. Its broad scope and the discretionary power vested in High Courts ensure the protection of citizens’ rights against administrative excesses, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional and legal rights.

REFERENCES

1. Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, AIR 1973 SC 2684.
2. State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin, AIR 1998 SC 394.
3. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893.
4. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233.
5. University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491.
6. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.
7. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.