Article 226: Power of High Courts to Issue Writs

Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue writs to carry out the implementation of Fundamental Rights. Articles 226 along with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provide all Indian citizens the right to constitutional remedies, which include equal protection under the law and equality before the law. The high court may issue writs against different organizations under Article 226. A popular approach to use this power is to file a Writ Petition with the Indian High Courts and Supreme Court. In this article, we will look into the basics of the right to constitutional remedies, and types of writ petition, and discuss some of the most important cases in its history.

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which is a section of Part V, gives the High Courts the ability to grant writs to any person or authority, including the government, in the form of prohibition, quo warranto, habeas corpus, certiorari, or any combination of these. High Courts in India are empowered under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to protect any of the fundamental rights that are stated in Part III of the Indian Constitution, 1949, or for any other purpose.

Article 226(1)

Article 226(1) gives every High Court within India’s territorial jurisdiction the authority to issue writs, orders, and instructions to any person or authority, including the government, for the purpose of enforcing Part III of the Indian Constitution, basic human rights, and other laws that come under its jurisdiction.

Article 226(2)

In situations where the cause of action is entirely or partially within their local jurisdiction, the High Courts may issue orders, instructions, and writs to any government authority or individual outside of their own local jurisdiction. This power is granted by Article 226(2), despite the fact that the government or authority’s seat or the individual’s residence is not within the territory.

Article 226(3)

Article 226(3) states that in the event that the respondent is the subject of an interim order under Article 226 in the form of a stay or an injunction, without:

• presenting a copy of the petition and any pertinent supporting documentation to the respondent; and
• granting the respondent, the chance to be heard.

The application must be decided by the High Court within two weeks of its receipt or, if that occurs later, within two weeks of the other party receiving it. In the event that the application is not resolved in this manner, the interim order will be revoked at the end of that period or, in the event that the High Court is closed on the final day of that period, before the following day the High Court is open. 

Article 226(4)

Article 226(4) states that the Supreme Court may exercise its authority under Article 32(2) notwithstanding the jurisdiction accorded to the High Courts under Article 226.

Scope of Article 226

Article 226 is applicable when a legal right is violated in addition to fundamental rights, giving it a more expansive application. Following are some of the cases:

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs the Union of India (1984)

In the 1984 case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India, it was decided that Article 226 was far more expansive than Article 32, granting High Courts the authority to issue orders, directions, and writs for the enforcement of both fundamental rights and legal rights that are enumerated in statutes and are equally important to the disadvantaged.

Veerappa Pillai vs Raman and Raman Limited (1952)

The case of Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Limited (1952) established that the writs mentioned in Article 226 were actually meant to allow the High Court to grant them in situations where officers or subordinate bodies act outside of their jurisdiction, beyond their jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise their jurisdiction. Also, the case may involve an obvious error on the face of the record, and the act, omission, error, or excess has caused injustice.

Chandigarh Administration vs Manpreet Singh (1991)

The decision in Chandigarh Administration v. Manpreet Singh (1991) stated that, when operating under Article 226, the High Court does not sit and/or serve as an appellate authority over the orders/actions of the subordinate authorities. It only has supervisory authority. Maintaining the government and several other agencies and courts within their designated jurisdictions is one of the main objectives of the jurisdiction. The High Court has to make sure that it stays within the clearly stated limits of its own jurisdiction when carrying out its duties.

Burmah Construction Co. vs the State of Orissa (1961)

In Burmah Construction Co. vs the State of Orissa (1961), it was decided that the aggrieved party should pursue the matter in a civil suit filed for that purpose and that the High Court generally does not entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of tort or breach of contract to pay an amount due to the claimant. However, an order for payment of money may be made in a petition under Article 226 against the state or an officer of the state in order to carry out a statutory duty.

Jagdish Prasad Shastri vs the State of Uttar Pradesh (1970)

The case of Jagdish Prasad Shastri v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (1970) defined that a High Court may decline to address factual issues raised in a writ petition that it considers unsuitable for resolution in a petition for a high prerogative writ, instead sending the party seeking relief back to their customary legal proceedings. It is without a doubt illegal that the High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that there were contested factual issues.

Difference Between Article 226 and Article 227

In the case of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, the Supreme Court of India created upon a number of earlier constitutional decisions from the Hon’ble Apex Court, including Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt. Radhikabai and Anr, stated the authority, scope, and differences between Articles 226 and 227. The following differences were identified by the Supreme Court following a review of its earlier decisions in the case of Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai:

Article 226	Article 227
High Courts have the authority to issue writs, orders, and directions to any person or authority, including the government, under Article 226	In contrast, High Courts have the authority to superintend over all other courts and tribunals within the jurisdiction they have under Article 227
Article 226 allows actions to be taken in the exercise of the High Court’s original jurisdiction	While Article 227 proceedings are strictly supervisory
Article 226 of the High Court’s Constitution grants it original jurisdiction, which is exercised by the writ of certiorari	In contrast, supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227) is not original and is more akin to appellate revision or corrective jurisdiction
Article 226 of the Constitution grants authority upon a plea submitted by or on behalf of the injured party	Article 227’s supervisory competence may also be exercised on its own initiative

Writ Petition Under Article 226

A writ petition is a formal legal document filed in a court of law to ask for authority to take action against someone who is violating someone’s fundamental rights. Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality in all aspects, guarantee this fundamental right. When the state or any of its agents violate a person’s fundamental rights, a writ petition is filed. It’s a way to make sure the government stands by and protects the rights of its people.

Types of writs available under Article 226

These are 5 different types of writs under Article 226:

• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Quo warranto
• Habeas corpus
• Mandamus

The Indian Constitution’s Article 32 allows anyone to petition the Supreme Court for the correct application of the rights granted by Part 3 of the Indian Constitution.

Habeas Corpus

The phrase is Latin for “you have the body.” It is given to present a person to the court who has been imprisoned without authorization. The court created a new norm to defend an aggrieved party’s fundamental right in the Rudel Shah v. State of Bihar case. In the event of an unauthorized detention, the state was ordered by the court to provide compensation to the person.

Mandamus

Mandamus is a Latin phrase that translates to “we command.” It is given in order to force a governmental authority to carry out its mandate. Another name for it is the prerogative writ. The court concluded that if a private person owes a public obligation, mandamus may be issued against them in the Sohanlal v. Union of India case.

Quo Warranto

Quo Warranto is a Latin phrase that translates to “by what authority.” It is given out to find out if a person holding public office is legitimate. The court concluded in the Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. DR. D Ram case that the High Court has the authority to grant quo warrantos, but that these orders cannot be issued against private offices.

Certiorari

The Latin word “certiorari” means “to be certified.” It is given to overturn a lower court’s or tribunal’s orders that go beyond their authority. In the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal, the court determined that the nation’s highest court and the High Court might use their judicial review authority to maintain the boundaries of lower courts.

Prohibition

The Latin word for prohibition means “to forbid.” It is granted to stop a lower court or tribunal from going beyond its authority. The court concluded in the State of Karnataka v. Union of India case that the High Court and the Supreme Court have the authority to impose prohibitions.

Questions on Article 226: Power of High Courts to Issue Writs

1. What is Article 226?

As per Article 226 (1), all High Courts have the authority to issue writs or directions to any person or authority within the regions that they have jurisdiction over.

2. Why Article 226 is more powerful than Article 32?

Since Article 32 only comes into effect after a fundamental right has been violated, its applicability is restricted. Conversely, Article 226 has a wider application because it covers both legal and fundamental rights abuses.

3. What is cause of action Article 226?

The Supreme Court of India declared in an important judgment that the term “cause of action” refers exclusively to facts that are relevant to the remedy being granted under Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution.

4. How do I file a petition under Article 226?

The petitioner or his advocate must sign each petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution. The advocate must also sign or affix his thumb mark at the bottom of each page of the petition. An affidavit must be submitted with the petition.

5. Is Article 226 the right to constitutional remedies?

Every Indian citizen is guaranteed the right to constitutional remedies, including equal protection under the law and equality before the law, per Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution.