Difference Between Article 226 and Article 227 of Indian Constitution
Article 226 vs Article 227 – Overview
| Feature | Article 226 | Article 227 |
|---|---|---|
| Provision | High Court’s power to issue certain writs | Supervisory power of High Court over subordinate courts and authorities |
| Type of Jurisdiction | Original jurisdiction | Supervisory jurisdiction |
| Courts Involved | High Courts | High Courts |
| Scope | Can issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Certiorari) to any person or authority (state, government, or private) | Can supervise all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction |
| Purpose | Protects Fundamental Rights and ensures legal enforcement of rights | Ensures subordinate courts and tribunals function within their jurisdiction and follow the law |
| Part of Constitution | Part III (Fundamental Rights) and High Court powers | Part VI (State Judiciary) |
| Who Can Challenge | Acts of State, authorities, or private individuals affecting rights | Acts of subordinate courts and tribunals |
| Examples of Use | Challenging executive orders, detentions, administrative actions violating rights | Correcting jurisdictional errors by magistrates, tribunals, or lower courts |
Detailed Explanation
Article 226 – Power of High Courts to Issue Writs
Original Jurisdiction:
High Courts can issue writs directly to any authority or person.
Protection of Fundamental Rights:
Writs under Article 226 can be issued for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for other legal purposes.
Flexibility:
Unlike Article 32 (Supreme Court), High Courts under Article 226 can issue writs not just for Fundamental Rights violations, but for other legal rights as well.
Cases:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Writ of Habeas Corpus issued under Article 226 to protect the personal liberty of a citizen.
K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1976): Article 226 invoked to challenge arbitrary administrative action.
Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts
Supervisory Power:
High Courts supervise all subordinate courts, tribunals, and authorities in their territorial jurisdiction.
Purpose:
Ensure subordinate courts act within jurisdiction and follow the law.
Limitation:
Cannot interfere arbitrarily; exercise of power is usually for jurisdictional errors or legal misapplication.
Cases:
Dinesh Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (2004): High Court exercised supervisory power under Article 227 to correct a magistrate’s jurisdictional error.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (1983): Supervisory powers invoked to maintain proper functioning of subordinate courts.
Key Differences Summarized
Nature of Jurisdiction:
Article 226 = Original jurisdiction (directly enforce rights)
Article 227 = Supervisory jurisdiction (control over lower courts)
Purpose:
Article 226 = Protect Fundamental Rights / legal rights
Article 227 = Ensure subordinate courts follow law and jurisdiction
Against Whom:
Article 226 = State, authorities, private parties
Article 227 = Subordinate courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities
Scope:
Article 226 = Wider scope, can issue writs to multiple authorities
Article 227 = Limited scope, mainly supervisory
Significance
Article 226 strengthens the protective role of High Courts in upholding rights.
Article 227 ensures administrative and judicial discipline in lower courts.
Together, they maintain the rule of law, proper judicial functioning, and protection of rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments