Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Article 226: Grants original jurisdiction to High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is primarily a writ jurisdiction allowing the High Court to directly examine and decide cases arising within its territorial jurisdiction. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh, M/s. Mitra SK (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh
Article 227: Provides supervisory jurisdiction to High Courts over lower courts, tribunals, and administrative authorities. It is not an original jurisdiction and cannot be used as a writ remedy but as a means to ensure the proper functioning of subordinate courts and authorities. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh, M/s. Mitra SK (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh
Scope and Nature of Proceedings:
Article 226: Concerned with correcting errors of law or procedure, and can be invoked to direct or quash decisions or orders, acting as a writ remedy. It involves original jurisdiction where the High Court directly hears the case. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh, M/s. Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh
Article 227: Acts as a supervisory check, not an appellate jurisdiction; it is used to supervise the functioning of subordinate courts and tribunals, and correct procedural errors or prevent miscarriage of justice without re-examining the merits of the case. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh, M/s. Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh
Nature of Power:
Article 226: The power is discretionary and wide, but exercised within the bounds of law, primarily to protect fundamental rights or prevent abuse of power. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh
Article 227: The power is unfettered but subject to judicial discipline; it is not an appellate review but a supervisory check to prevent jurisdictional errors or procedural lapses. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh, M/s. Mitra SK (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh
Interference with Orders:
Under Article 227, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the merits but can intervene if there is illegality, jurisdictional error, or procedural irregularity. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh, M/s. Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh
Legal Proceedings and References:
References:- M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation vs Santosh Puri - Madhya Pradesh- M/s. Mitra SK (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh- M/s. Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd vs Dhiren Kumar - Andhra Pradesh- M/s.K.P.Manish Global Ingred vs Customs Central Excise and S - Madras- Surinder Singh vs Dwarpal & Others - Himachal Pradesh- DR. VALSAMMA CHACKO vs LEELAMMA JOSEPH - Kerala
In the intricate framework of the Indian Constitution, play a pivotal role in upholding justice and protecting rights. A common query among legal enthusiasts, practitioners, and citizens alike is: What is the difference between and ? These provisions empower but in distinctly different ways—one as a robust guardian of rights through writs, the other as a vigilant overseer of subordinate courts. Understanding this distinction is essential for anyone navigating constitutional remedies, as misinvoking the wrong article can lead to procedural pitfalls or dismissals.
This blog post delves into the core differences, drawing from landmark judicial interpretations and key principles. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be construed as specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your circumstances.
stands as a cornerstone for enforcing fundamental rights and other legal entitlements. It grants to issue writs such as , , , , and . This power allows the High Court to act as a court of , directly addressing violations by any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction.
The scope is broad: it targets not just governmental bodies but any entity acting or infringing rights. Proceedings under result in that serve as substantive remedies, akin to a direct adjudication. As judicial precedents emphasize, this jurisdiction is exercised to protect fundamental rights and ensure legal enforcement.
For instance, if a public authority arbitrarily denies a fundamental right, a petitioner can approach the High Court under for immediate relief through writs. The power is discretionary and wide, but courts exercise restraint where alternate statutory remedies exist.
In contrast, vests with over all courts, tribunals, and subordinate authorities within their territorial limits. This is not an but a protective mechanism to ensure subordinate bodies stay within bounds, adhere to , and avoid grave errors.
The High Court does not re-appreciate evidence or merits; it corrects , procedural lapses, or . Importantly, a petition under cannot be called a . This power can be invoked or on application, but it is to be used sparingly.
Under , the court may guide, correct, or even substitute decisions, but without functioning as an appellate body. Its aim is oversight, not substitution of judgment on facts. As noted, The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under /227... highlighting limits on interference.
To clarify the distinction, here's a structured comparison:
Scope and Targets:
: Limited to courts, tribunals; focuses on jurisdictional propriety.
Nature of Relief:
Exercise of Power:
These differences are well-established: proceedings under are original and substantive, while those under are supervisory and corrective.
Courts have repeatedly underscored this divide. In key rulings, the clarified that involves direct writ remedies, while is for supervisory checks. Cases like emphasize that deals with writs, distinct from 's oversight.
However, practice shows overlap. Petitions are often filed under both articles, and courts determine the true nature of the proceeding. A judge's label under doesn't negate appeal rights if it's truly original under 226. If summarily dismissed, appellate courts assess suitability.
Full Bench decisions note the distinction has almost obliterated in practice but remains fundamental.
Both powers have checks:- : Avoid if statutory appeals available; restraint advised. - : Sparingly for patently erroneous or jurisdictional orders; no routine interference.
Under , courts can quash illegal orders; under 227, intervene only for illegality or irregularity, not merits.
Articles 226 and 227 complement each other—226 as the sword for rights enforcement, 227 as the shield for judicial discipline. While overlaps exist, grasping their essence ensures effective invocation. Key takeaway: offers original writ jurisdiction for substantive relief; provides supervisory power for corrective oversight. Always tailor petitions to the proceeding's nature.
For deeper insights, refer to precedents like , , , , and others cited. Stay informed, but seek professional counsel for cases.
#Article226vs227, #IndianConstitution, #HighCourtPowers
On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article ... (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. ... Th....
The difference between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was well brought out in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai [1986 Supp SCC 401]. ... In a catena of decisions, Hon’ble the Supreme Court culled out the principles governing difference between Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and supervisory jurisdiction under Article #HL_STAR....
The difference between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was well brought out in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai [1986 Supp SCC 401]. ... In a catena of decisions, Hon’ble the Supreme Court culled out the principles governing difference between Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and supervisory jurisdiction under Article #HL_STAR....
On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article ... (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. ... Th....
On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article ... (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. ... Th....
questioned in proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, however, a writ of certiorari could be issued only to correct an error of law. ... & Anr.1 has discussed the scope of the High Court under Article 226/227 in interfering with the orders passed by the tribunals and courts inferior to it, has held as under: - “15. ... The High Court has erred in its exercise of power und....
the power under Article 227 and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. ... When a combined application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is summarily dismissed without reasons, the appeal court may consider whether the facts alleged, warranted filing of the application under Article 226 or under Article 227#....
under Article 227. ... Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. ... According to the learned counsel, what ought to have been done in the present case is to file a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 a....
It also held to the same effect while placing reliance upon the judgment in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji case (supra), that there is difference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the The District Forum passed the order which was challenged not by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , but by filing the petition under Article #HL_ST....
Comparative reading of Articles 226 and 227, focusing on the jurisdictional facet, shows that there is substantial difference between Articles 226 and 227. ... As we noted in the beginning, there is substantial difference between the jurisdictional features of Articles 226 and 227 as revealed from a comparative reading of the provisions. ... Arising o....
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
