Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Alternative Remedy is Not an Absolute Bar - The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is regarded as a rule of discretion, and courts may exercise jurisdiction in exceptional cases where justice demands, especially if the remedy is ineffective or the order is patently illegal ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1272"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56784"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 859"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1339"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077"].
Exceptions to the Rule - Courts may entertain writ petitions despite the existence of an alternative remedy in cases involving patent illegality, violation of fundamental rights, or where the statutory remedy is ineffective or not efficacious. The Supreme Court has clarified that the rule of alternative remedy is not absolute and can be bypassed in extraordinary circumstances ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1272"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56784"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 859"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1339"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13261"].
Discretionary Nature of Court Jurisdiction - The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 remains discretionary. Courts consider the facts of each case, especially when the statutory remedy is inadequate, ineffective, or involves illegalities that warrant interference. The courts have emphasized that justice and legality take precedence over procedural rules in certain circumstances ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1272"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 21506"], ["2021 0 Supreme(Pat) 27"].
Legal Precedents and Clarifications - Landmark judgments have reinforced that while statutory remedies should generally be pursued, they do not create an absolute bar. The courts have acknowledged exceptions, such as violations of fundamental rights or illegal acts, where immediate judicial intervention is justified ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1272"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56784"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 21506"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The prevailing legal stance is that the existence of an alternative remedy is a significant but not an insurmountable obstacle to entertaining a writ petition. Courts retain the discretion to bypass this rule in exceptional cases, especially where the remedy is inadequate, or fundamental rights are at stake. Thus, the Absolute Bar doctrine is not absolute; courts may intervene through writ petitions under Article 226 despite statutory remedies, ensuring justice is not obstructed by procedural technicalities.
In the realm of constitutional law in India, one common question arises frequently: Alternative Remedy is the Absolute Bar to invoking the 's under Article 226? Many petitioners face dismissal of their writ petitions solely because a exists. However, the legal consensus is clear and reassuring: the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a under . This principle, rooted in and policy, allows High Courts to intervene in exceptional cases, balancing efficiency with justice. 2012 0 Supreme(All) 850 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077
This blog post delves into the doctrine, key precedents, recognized exceptions, and practical implications, drawing from landmark judgments and related cases. Note: This is general information based on judicial trends and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The serves as a on High Courts, guided by principles of policy, convenience, and rather than a rigid jurisdictional bar. Courts generally encourage parties to exhaust statutory remedies first to avoid overburdening . Yet, this is not absolute. As held in multiple rulings, the existence of an effective alternative remedy does not bar the from entertaining a . 2012 0 Supreme(All) 850 2006 0 Supreme(All) 160 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077
For instance, the in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks () clarified that the power under Article 226 is and not limited by other provisions. Exceptions arise when the remedy is ineffective, dilatory, or involves violations of , , or proceedings without jurisdiction. 2006 0 Supreme(All) 160 2012 0 Supreme(All) 850
Several landmark decisions have solidified that alternative remedies do not oust outright:
These precedents underscore that courts retain discretion to bypass remedies in exceptional circumstances. 2007 0 Supreme(All) 1355 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 10 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1111
Documents consistently outline scenarios overriding the alternative remedy rule:
In Antarim Zila Parishad v. Muzaffarnagar (AIR 1969 SC 556), it was held that alternatives do not bar writs for violations or principles of breaches. 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 556
High Courts have echoed this in diverse contexts, reinforcing flexibility:
These cases illustrate application across taxation, revenue, arbitration, and service matters, always hinging on case-specific merits.
While courts prefer exhaustion of remedies, they exercise discretion based on facts. Petitioners should:
Advocates must persuasively invoke precedents like Whirlpool to justify bypassing remedies. Courts, in turn, should weigh circumstances before dismissal. 2012 0 Supreme(All) 850 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077
In fraudulent transaction challenges, even delays do not validate nullities, but writs may still require remedies unless exceptional. Related rulings emphasize civil suits for title disputes post-mutation. 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 556 (context on void transactions)
Final takeaway: Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to Article 226 writ petitions. High Courts wield discretionary power to entertain cases involving , , jurisdictional errors, or exceptional injustice, as affirmed across precedents. 2012 0 Supreme(All) 850 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1111 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 10
This flexible approach ensures justice isn't delayed by rigid procedure. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to navigate effectively.
Key Takeaways:- Rule of policy, not jurisdiction.- Exceptions prioritize rights and fairness.- Each case turns on its facts.
References include judgments like 2012 0 Supreme(All) 850, 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077, 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1111, and others cited inline.
#Article226, #WritPetition, #AlternativeRemedy
Thus, it has been a settled view of the Apex Court that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in an appropriate case but ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy is provided under law. 23. ... No doubt, there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 even though an #HL....
of High Court and render a Writ petition not maintainable; and that availability of alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of Writ Petition and the rule which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by statute is a rule of policy, convenience and ... Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur, 2014 (4) KLT 79, which specifically held ....
Chief Standing Counsel may not be treated to be an absolute bar inasmuch as the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed in view of the patent illegality committed by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section ... Nil of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8867 of 2022) decided on 10th April, 2024, after considering various judgments in Para 29 carved out certain exc....
Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of Law. ... alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from....
The question as to whether an alternative remedy is an absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 has been under constant legal vigil of not only the Apex Court but also of this Court. ... In a long line of decisions, this Court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar#HL_E....
The applicant contends that although there is alternative remedy of appeal in the present case and he has filed an appeal, the alternative remedy is not being exhausted as the result is already known to him like past appeals, and that alternative remedy is not absolute bar in the event of order without ... From the catena of decision of the Supreme Co....
The law regarding entertaining the writ petition despite alternative remedy is no longer res integra. There is no absolute bar for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy but the jurisdiction is extra ordinary and discretionary. ... Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that an alternative remedy#HL_EN....
Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar AIR 1969 SC 556, it has been held that an alternative remedy is not a bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles ... Referring to the above, it was submitted that the petition be dismissed on the ground of having alternative efficacious remedy#HL_END....
It is trite law that there is no absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction because alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Such objection has to be considered, in the facts and circumstances of each case. ... Exercise of jurisdiction is discretionary and where there exists adequate alternative remedy, the Courts normally refuse to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of ....
The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ... When the question is posed to learned counsel for petitioner with respect to alternate remedy of ....
6. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court have passed various orders in which it has been held that the Courts will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until all normal remedies available to petitioners have been exhausted. In case an alternative efficacious remedy is available, the High Court may not interfere straightaway under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners would have been expected ....
The proclamation required that such person who raised the objection must produce evidence that he is in possession in support of his objection. Existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. The contention of the writ petitioner therein was based on the provisions of Rule A-375 of Revenue Court's Manual, wherein primarily proclamation is made on the basis of mutation application, in favour of the person who has obtained possession, and the case may be finally decided....
Apart from it, as clarified in the succeeding paragraphs no factual questions are involved : the facts are admitted and only the questions of law are being argued. In view of this, it cannot be said that petitioner was given reasonable opportunity before the impugned order was passed. In these circumstances, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar.
The bar of an alternative remedy is not an absolute one. This is a fit case for being entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Since in the present case questions of law are involved as well as the interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme court in Pappu Sweets [1998] ( 7 ) EXISTENCE of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. It is a self-imposed restriction by the courts not to exercise their discretion under Article 226 in appropriate cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
