Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226
What is Article 226?
Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. This jurisdiction is broader than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Key Features of Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction
Who can approach? Any person can move the High Court.
Scope of jurisdiction: Can be invoked for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for other legal rights.
Writs can be issued against: The State, including Government authorities, public bodies, and corporations.
Nature of writs: The High Court can issue the following writs:
Habeas Corpus: To secure release of a person unlawfully detained.
Mandamus: To command a public authority to perform a public duty.
Prohibition: To prevent lower courts or tribunals from exceeding jurisdiction.
Certiorari: To quash an order or decision of a lower authority.
Quo Warranto: To question the authority of a person holding public office.
Importance of Article 226
Provides expeditious remedy at the High Court level.
Wider scope than Article 32 because it is not confined to Fundamental Rights alone.
Plays a vital role in administrative law by controlling executive and quasi-judicial authorities.
Accessible in public interest litigations and for protection of fundamental and legal rights.
Landmark Cases on Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226
1. Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)
Facts: Hundreds of undertrial prisoners languishing in jail without trial.
Issue: Whether their fundamental right to speedy trial was violated.
Holding: The Supreme Court directed the release of prisoners unlawfully detained, emphasizing the importance of habeas corpus writ under Article 226 and 32.
Significance: Demonstrated the power of writ jurisdiction to enforce speedy justice and protect fundamental rights.
Impact: Expanded judicial activism in protecting the rights of undertrials and prisoners.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Challenged constitutional amendments affecting property rights.
Issue: Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is unlimited.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
Relation to Article 226: The case reiterated that writ jurisdiction could be invoked to protect the Constitution’s basic structure from legislative overreach.
Significance: Established limits on legislative power enforceable through writs.
3. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)
Facts: Passport of Maneka Gandhi was impounded without reason.
Issue: Whether the procedure for impounding the passport violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that any administrative action must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Relation to Article 226: This expanded the scope of writ jurisdiction to include enforcement of procedural fairness.
Impact: Writ jurisdiction protects fundamental rights beyond mere textual interpretation.
4. S.P. Gupta v Union of India (1981) (The Judges’ Transfer Case)
Facts: Challenged the transfer of High Court judges without consultation.
Issue: Whether writ jurisdiction could be used to scrutinize judicial appointments.
Holding: The Supreme Court acknowledged the power of writ jurisdiction in administrative actions affecting judiciary.
Significance: Emphasized the role of writs in controlling executive action even in delicate areas like judiciary.
Impact: Expanded the scope of writs as a tool to check arbitrary government action.
5. M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) (Environmental Protection Case)
Facts: Pollution of rivers and environment raised serious public concerns.
Issue: Use of writ jurisdiction to enforce environmental laws.
Holding: The court issued various writs to enforce environmental standards.
Significance: Demonstrated the scope of Article 226 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Impact: Writs became instruments for environmental justice and protection of public welfare.
6. Ashok Kumar Thakur v Union of India (2008)
Facts: Challenge to reservation policies in educational institutions.
Issue: Validity of affirmative action and scope of writ jurisdiction.
Holding: The court upheld the validity but emphasized judicial scrutiny under writ jurisdiction.
Significance: Illustrated the writ jurisdiction’s role in balancing social justice and constitutional principles.
Summary Table: Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction and Landmark Cases
| Case | Year | Writ & Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hussainara Khatoon | 1979 | Habeas Corpus | Protection of liberty; speedy trial |
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments | Basic structure doctrine enforced via writs |
| Maneka Gandhi | 1978 | Procedural Fairness | Expanded fundamental rights protection |
| S.P. Gupta | 1981 | Writ jurisdiction over judicial transfers | Control over executive actions affecting judiciary |
| M.C. Mehta | 1987 | Public Interest Litigation & writs | Environmental protection through writs |
| Ashok Kumar Thakur | 2008 | Reservation & judicial scrutiny | Balancing affirmative action with constitutional norms |
Conclusion
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants the High Courts a broad and flexible writ jurisdiction, making it a powerful tool for enforcing fundamental and other legal rights. The courts have progressively expanded this jurisdiction to include public interest litigation, environmental protection, procedural fairness, and constitutional governance.
This writ jurisdiction acts as a strong check on executive and legislative excesses, promoting justice, accountability, and protection of individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments