Judicial review under Article 226 (High Courts)
Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution
1. Introduction to Article 226
Article 226 empowers the High Courts of India to issue certain writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. It grants wide jurisdiction to the High Courts to:
Issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.
Enforce Fundamental Rights as well as other legal rights.
Exercise judicial review over the actions of the State, public authorities, and even subordinate courts and tribunals.
2. Scope and Importance of Article 226
The scope of Article 226 is wider than Article 32, which only deals with enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
High Courts under Article 226 can intervene not just for Fundamental Rights but also for any other legal rights.
Judicial review under Article 226 includes scrutiny of legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial actions.
It acts as a powerful tool to check abuse of power, arbitrariness, and illegality by authorities within the jurisdiction of a state or union territory.
3. Judicial Review: Meaning and Significance
Judicial Review refers to the power of courts to examine the constitutionality and legality of legislative and administrative actions.
Under Article 226, the High Courts can invalidate administrative orders or government actions that are:
Ultra vires (beyond the powers conferred),
Arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory,
In violation of statutory or constitutional provisions,
Violative of fundamental or legal rights.
4. Kinds of Writs under Article 226
Habeas Corpus: Protects against unlawful detention.
Mandamus: Commands public authority to perform its duty.
Prohibition: Prevents lower courts or tribunals from exceeding jurisdiction.
Certiorari: Quashes illegal orders passed by inferior courts or authorities.
Quo Warranto: Challenges the authority of a person holding public office.
5. Limitations and Conditions
Article 226 is discretionary, not a matter of right.
High Courts generally do not interfere with policy decisions or matters of pure discretion, unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.
Delay or alternative remedies available might affect exercise of power.
High Courts usually refrain from interfering in the domain of election matters (except for writ of quo warranto).
Landmark Cases on Judicial Review under Article 226
🔹 1. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 710
Facts:
Petitioners challenged detention orders under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 to test legality of executive orders.
Detention orders must pass the test of reasonableness and procedural fairness.
Article 226 can be invoked even if alternative remedies exist.
Significance:
Established the expansive scope of judicial review under Article 226.
🔹 2. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1361
Facts:
Question arose whether High Courts could entertain writ petitions for enforcement of rights beyond Fundamental Rights.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held Article 226 is not restricted to Fundamental Rights alone.
High Courts can protect any legal right.
Significance:
Confirmed that judicial review under Article 226 is wider than Article 32.
🔹 3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1962)
Citation: AIR 1962 SC 559
Facts:
Petitioner challenged an administrative order removing him from service.
Judgment:
Held that High Courts can intervene under Article 226 if there is violation of principles of natural justice or procedural irregularity.
Judicial review extends to executive actions affecting individual rights.
Significance:
Reiterated High Courts’ role as protector against unfair administrative action.
🔹 4. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Citation: AIR 1979 SC 1628
Facts:
Petitioner was denied a contract despite meeting criteria.
Judgment:
Held that administrative action must be fair, non-arbitrary, and transparent.
High Courts have power to issue writs to check arbitrariness.
Significance:
Reinforced Article 226’s role in ensuring fair administrative practices.
🔹 5. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts:
Challenge to appointment of judges and their independence.
Judgment:
Emphasized that High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to maintain rule of law and prevent abuse of power.
Significance:
Highlighted judicial review as a safeguard of constitutional governance.
🔹 6. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
Citation: (2006) 2 SCC 1
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the imposition of President’s Rule in Bihar.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that High Courts under Article 226 can examine the validity of proclamation of President’s Rule.
Judicial review safeguards democratic principles and constitutional mandates.
Significance:
Shows the reach of judicial review under Article 226 in political and constitutional crises.
🔹 7. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993)
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 1263
Facts:
Challenge to a takeover by the government.
Judgment:
Court held that administrative action must conform to law and reasonableness.
Article 226 is a potent weapon against arbitrary government action.
Summary Table of Cases and Their Contribution
| Case Name | Year | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| A.K. Roy v. Union of India | 1982 | Wide power of Article 226; procedural fairness |
| State of Rajasthan v. UOI | 1977 | Judicial review beyond Fundamental Rights |
| K.K. Verma v. UOI | 1962 | Natural justice in administrative action |
| R.D. Shetty v. IAA | 1979 | No arbitrariness in administrative action |
| S.P. Gupta v. UOI | 1981 | Rule of law & prevention of abuse of power |
| Rameshwar Prasad v. UOI | 2006 | Review of President’s Rule under Article 226 |
| D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries | 1993 | Reasonableness and legality of administrative action |
Conclusion
Article 226 empowers High Courts with broad jurisdiction to enforce rights and check illegality in administrative and executive actions.
It acts as a vital check against abuse of power and ensures accountability.
Judicial review under Article 226 has evolved into a cornerstone of Indian constitutional governance.
High Courts exercise this power to uphold rule of law, fairness, and justice in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments