Author’s Name: Aarya Chande, RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law
A) Introduction
The Constitution of India confers upon the High Courts substantial authority to protect and safeguard fundamental rights and ensure justice through Article 226. Under this article, the High Courts have wider jurisdiction than even the Supreme Court, which can only issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Therefore, it is important to understand the powers granted under this article, as it showcases judicial oversight over government actions and ensures their constitutional validity.
This article empowers the High Courts to act as the guardians of citizens’ rights. Before the Constitution came into force, writs were only issued by the three Presidency Courts, but their scope was limited. The framers of the Constitution expanded this scope of writ jurisdiction and included the enforcement of legal rights and duties along with fundamental rights.
This article highlights the provisions, kinds of powers, and the scope and ambit of High Courts under Article 226.
Keywords: Article 226, High Court, Writs, Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights.
B) Provisions Under Article 226
1. Scope of Article 226
Article 226(1) states:
“Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”
Clause (2) of Article 226 extends the jurisdiction of the High Courts beyond their territorial limits. It states that the authority to issue orders, directions, and writs is not confined to the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction. It can be exercised whenever the cause of action arises, in whole or in part, within its jurisdiction, even if the government, authority, or individual against whom the writ is issued is situated outside the High Court’s territorial boundaries.
Clause (3) provides that if a party receives an interim order without being given copies of the petition and documents in support of the order or a chance to be heard, they can apply to the High Court to cancel that order. The High Court must address this application within two weeks, or the order will be automatically cancelled if not resolved by then.
Clause (4) clarifies that the powers granted to the High Courts under Article 226 shall not be in derogation of the power given to the Supreme Court under Article 32.
C) Historical Background and Evolution
The history of Article 226 can be traced back to British law and the development of constitutional law in India. The writs under this article are known as prerogative writs, as they originated from the prerogative power of supervision over officers and subordinate courts.
Before the Constitution of India came into effect, only the three Presidency High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras had the authority to issue writs, and their jurisdiction was limited to the presidency towns where they held original jurisdiction. The British legal system introduced writs as safeguards for upholding the rights of citizens.
It was an act of great wisdom and foresight on the part of the Constitution-makers to introduce the writ system in India, thereby constituting the High Courts as the guardians of the people’s legal rights.
D) Kinds of Powers Under Article 22
1. Writs Under Article 226
Writs are written orders issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts of India as a constitutional remedy for safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens. The Constitution provides for the following types of writs:
a) Habeas Corpus
The term “habeas corpus” is of Latin origin, meaning “you may have the body.” It is issued as an order to summon a person who has detained another person before the court. If the detention is found to be illegal, the court orders the release of the detained person.
b) Mandamus
The term “mandamus” means “we command.” It is an order issued by a superior court directing an individual or public authority, including the government and public corporations, to perform or refrain from performing an act in the nature of public duty or statutory duty.
c) Prohibition
A writ of prohibition is issued to prevent a subordinate court or tribunal from acting beyond its jurisdiction or in contradiction of the principles of natural justice. This writ is supervisory in nature and must be used carefully and sparingly.
d) Certiorari
A writ of certiorari is issued by a superior court against lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies to rectify errors and prevent violations of law. Like prohibition, certiorari is also supervisory in nature and must be used with caution.
e) Quo Warranto
The term “quo warranto” means “by what authority.” This writ is issued to question the legal grounds or the authority upon which a person holds an office. The objective of this writ is to prevent unlawful appointments.
2. Judicial Review Under Article 226
Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to review and examine the constitutionality of legislations and actions of the legislative, executive, or administrative bodies of the government.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review of legislative actions vested in the High Courts under Article 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed by a constitutional amendment.
Under Article 226, judicial review primarily examines the process involved in a decision rather than the decision’s merit itself. It focuses on whether the authority acted within its jurisdiction and followed due process established by law.
In Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) as per LRS v. District Collector, Chittoor District, the Supreme Court enumerated the grounds for judicial review against administrative decisions, which include:
- Perversity
- Illegality
- Procedural irregularity
- Want of power
E) Nature and Scope of Article 226
The power of the High Court under Article 226 is both wide and extensive. It is not confined solely to issuing writs but extends to granting directions and orders. The phrase “for any other purpose” in Clause (1) of Article 226 explicitly signifies that the jurisdiction of a High Court extends beyond fundamental rights to legal rights as well. This ensures unrestricted access to justice, unaffected by legislative constraints or procedural technicalities.
However, the term “for any other purpose” does not imply absolute discretionary power. While High Courts enjoy broader jurisdiction than the Supreme Court (which is restricted to enforcing fundamental rights under Article 32), their authority is still subject to judicial discipline and constitutional limitations.
In T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa, the Supreme Court emphasized that Article 226 is designed in broad and comprehensive terms, granting extensive power to High Courts to address injustice wherever it arises. The deliberate use of such wide language reflects the framers’ intent in defining the nature and purpose of this power, along with specifying the authorities against whom it can be exercised.
F) Limits of the High Court’s Power Under Article 226
Despite its broad scope, Article 226 has certain limitations. The High Court cannot intervene even in cases where a decision is incorrect unless there is mala fide intent. This means that the rationale behind an authority’s actions is not subject to judicial review, as courts should not second-guess administrative decisions.
Moreover, the High Court cannot override statutory provisions. It also lacks the authority to grant interest in cases except as specified by the statute when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
G) Case Laws / Precedents
1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
This case established that Article 226 has a wider scope than Article 32. While Article 32 is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 226 enables High Courts to issue writs for both fundamental and statutory legal rights. The judgment also emphasized the judiciary’s role in protecting marginalized and disadvantaged individuals, reinforcing its commitment to social justice.
2. Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) LRS v. District Collector, Chittoor District (2019)
In this case, the court ruled that administrative decisions can be judicially reviewed under Article 226 only on grounds of perversity, illegality, procedural irregularity, and lack of jurisdiction. The court held that a decision may be deemed irrational if it is so unreasonable that no rational person could have arrived at it based on the evidence. It was further clarified that judicial review under Article 226 is aimed at evaluating the decision-making process, not the decision itself.
3. Roshina T v. Abdul Azeez K.T (2018)
The Supreme Court held that remedy under Article 226 can be availed only when there is an allegation of violation of a statutory duty by a statutory authority. The High Court cannot invoke its constitutional jurisdiction in disputes where an alternative remedy is available under general law. The judgment reaffirmed that Article 226 should be exercised cautiously and not be used as a substitute for ordinary legal remedies.
H) Conclusion & Comments
Article 226 is a vital constitutional provision that empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of both fundamental and legal rights. It acts as a check on the government and administrative authorities, ensuring that their actions do not violate the rights of citizens. By providing a quick and effective remedy, it serves as a critical tool against administrative or executive overreach.
However, judicial activism must be balanced with judicial restraint. Courts must ensure that their intervention does not lead to overreach or unnecessary interference. High Courts must approach matters with caution while upholding constitutional morality and the rule of law.
I) References
1. Books / Commentaries / Journals Referred
- M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis India, 7th edn., 2017).
- J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, 60th edn., 2023).
- Commander Anand Bhuptani (Retd.) and S.S. Rai, Unravelling the Paradox – Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, 4 International Journal of Law Management and Humanities (2021).
2. Online Articles / Sources Referred
3. Cases Referred
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802.
- Roshina T v. Abdul Azeez K.T, AIR 2019 SC 659.
- Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) LRS v. District Collector, Chittoor District, AIR 2019 SC 1706.
- T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440.
4. Statutes Referred
- Constitution of India, Article 226.
- Constitution of India, Article 32.
