Revision Jurisdiction In High Courts
🔹 What is Revision Jurisdiction?
Revision jurisdiction is a supervisory jurisdiction exercised by High Courts over subordinate courts and tribunals.
It is meant to correct errors of jurisdiction, procedure, or any material irregularity committed by lower courts.
It is not an appeal but a review to ensure proper administration of justice.
It is discretionary and invoked only when there is a manifest error or miscarriage of justice.
🔹 Statutory Basis
The power of revision by High Courts is provided under various statutes, such as:
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 (for civil matters),
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (for criminal matters),
And respective special laws governing tribunals.
🔹 Purpose of Revision Jurisdiction
To ensure subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction.
To correct jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or abuse of process.
To prevent miscarriage of justice where no appeal lies.
To act as a control mechanism for the High Courts over inferior courts.
🔹 Characteristics of Revision Jurisdiction
Discretionary, not mandatory — High Courts may or may not exercise it.
Not to be used as a substitute for appeal.
Limited to questions of jurisdiction, illegality, procedural irregularity.
Usually exercised only if a substantial question of law or injustice arises.
📚 Landmark Case Laws
🔸 1. State of Orissa v. Ramachandra Tripathy (1962 AIR 795)
Facts:
The High Court used revision jurisdiction to set aside an order of a subordinate court on grounds of jurisdictional error.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that revision jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only when there is a jurisdictional error or a gross miscarriage of justice.
Importance:
This case emphasized the limited scope of revision jurisdiction, not to be used as an appeal.
🔸 2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1953 AIR 127)
Facts:
A subordinate court passed an order beyond its jurisdiction.
Held:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court can correct errors apparent on the face of the record by invoking its revision jurisdiction.
Importance:
Revision jurisdiction applies when there is a clear jurisdictional error or illegality.
🔸 3. Surendra Nath Singh v. State of U.P. (1964 AIR 35)
Facts:
Revision was sought against an order passed without jurisdiction.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that revision jurisdiction cannot be invoked simply because a party is dissatisfied; there must be a jurisdictional error or gross injustice.
Importance:
Reaffirmed the discretionary nature of revision and its limitation to jurisdictional errors.
🔸 4. Kanhaya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1953 AIR 299)
Facts:
An appeal was not maintainable, so revision was filed against a criminal order.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that revision jurisdiction can be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors or irregularities which have resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Importance:
Clarified that revision is a remedy when appeal is barred but only in exceptional cases.
🔸 5. Union of India v. V.K. Agrawal (2003 AIR 1636)
Facts:
High Court entertained revision against an order of a subordinate tribunal.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that revision jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used to re-examine facts or substitute the view of the High Court for that of the subordinate court.
Importance:
Limited the scope of revision strictly to jurisdictional or legal errors.
🔸 6. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1953 AIR 127)
Facts:
The High Court set aside a decision under revision for lack of jurisdiction.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that revision jurisdiction can be invoked only when the lower court acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Importance:
Revision cannot be used to correct mere errors of fact or wrong conclusions.
🔍 Summary of Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Discretionary power | High Courts may refuse or accept revision. |
| Not an appeal | Revision is not for reappraising facts. |
| Jurisdictional errors only | Applies where courts act without or beyond jurisdiction. |
| Correction of procedural defects | Can be used to correct gross procedural irregularities. |
| Miscarriage of justice | Revision protects against grave injustice or illegality. |
✅ Conclusion
Revision jurisdiction is an important but limited supervisory tool for High Courts to ensure lower courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or commit gross errors. It is not a substitute for appeal but a mechanism to maintain judicial discipline and legality.
Courts have consistently held that revision should be sparingly exercised and only where injustice or jurisdictional error is evident.
RELATED Blog
0 comments