Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
🔷 Introduction to 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 legal right.
This makes the writ jurisdiction of High Courts wider than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32, which can be invoked only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
🔷 Text of Article 226 (Simplified)
Every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of:
Fundamental Rights, and
For any other purpose (i.e., legal rights)
🔷 Nature and Scope of Writ Jurisdiction
Not limited to Fundamental Rights — Unlike Article 32.
Can be exercised against any person or authority, including the government.
Available for public law remedies, not private law disputes unless there's a violation of statutory/public duty.
Discretionary in nature — High Courts can refuse relief on grounds like:
Delay/Laches
Availability of alternative remedy
Conduct of the petitioner
🔷 Types of Writs under Article 226
Habeas Corpus – "To produce the body"
Mandamus – "We command"
Prohibition – To prevent a lower court or tribunal from acting beyond jurisdiction
Certiorari – To quash an order passed without or in excess of jurisdiction
Quo Warranto – "By what authority" – To question the legality of a person holding public office
🔷 Landmark Case Laws on Article 226
✅ 1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Facts:
The constitutional validity of Articles 323A and 323B (Administrative Tribunals) was challenged. These articles barred the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.
Held:
Power of judicial review under Article 226 is part of the basic structure.
Parliament cannot oust the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
Tribunals are supplementary to High Courts, not substitutes.
Significance:
Reaffirmed primacy of High Courts’ writ jurisdiction.
Article 226 is inviolable and cannot be curtailed even by constitutional amendment.
✅ 2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (1958 SCR 595)
Facts:
A departmental inquiry against the respondent was alleged to be vitiated by procedural irregularities.
Held:
High Courts can issue writs of certiorari to quash administrative/quasi-judicial orders if there is a violation of natural justice.
Even when there is no appeal, a High Court can interfere if the authority acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
Significance:
Clarified the scope of certiorari under Article 226.
Procedural fairness and natural justice are essential.
✅ 3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802)
Facts:
A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 226 for release of bonded laborers.
Held:
High Courts can entertain PILs under Article 226 for enforcement of fundamental and legal rights of disadvantaged sections.
Procedural technicalities should not defeat justice.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of writs to cover social justice and PILs.
High Court can act suo motu on information regarding violations of rights.
✅ 4. T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1955 AIR 440)
Facts:
Petitioner challenged the election of the respondent on grounds of irregularities.
Held:
Defined scope of writ of certiorari.
Certiorari can be issued not only for lack of jurisdiction, but also when there is error apparent on the face of the record.
Significance:
Explained procedural aspects of writ jurisdiction.
Demonstrated judicial activism to ensure fair administrative action.
✅ 5. Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani (1989 AIR 1607)
Facts:
Teachers of an aided institution were denied terminal benefits, and they approached the High Court under Article 226.
Held:
Writs under Article 226 can be issued against private bodies discharging public functions.
The test is not who the authority is, but what function it performs.
Significance:
Widened scope of mandamus.
Writ lies against private institutions receiving state aid or performing public duty.
✅ 6. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980 AIR 1896)
Facts:
Challenge to illegal termination of workers.
Held:
High Court can issue writs against private companies where public interest is involved.
Even private employers can be directed if they are covered under industrial law.
Significance:
Reinforced Article 226's wide ambit.
Emphasized social justice and fairness.
✅ 7. Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer (1965 AIR 81)
Facts:
Petitioner sought to challenge illegal assessment by Income Tax Officer.
Held:
Article 226 is a constitutional remedy.
Courts can issue any direction, order, or writ, not limited to prerogative writs.
The scope is wider than the English common law writs.
Significance:
Clarified that Article 226 is not restricted to traditional writs.
Can issue any appropriate order to secure justice.
🔷 Key Features of Article 226 Jurisdiction
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Wider Scope | Encompasses both Fundamental and legal rights |
| Discretionary | High Court can deny relief on equitable grounds |
| Not Alternative to Appeal | Usually not entertained when an effective alternate remedy exists |
| Against Any Authority | Includes private bodies performing public functions |
| PIL Allowed | Public Interest Litigation maintainable under Art. 226 |
🔷 Conclusion
Article 226 serves as a powerful tool for ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law. Its flexible, wide ambit allows the High Courts to play a proactive role in protecting citizens’ rights, enforcing public duties, and correcting administrative excesses. The vast jurisprudence has consistently upheld its foundational importance within the Indian constitutional framework.
RELATED Blog
0 comments