Know The Law | When Can High Courts Grant Relief Under Article 226 Beyond Pleadings? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently clarified that although High Courts are ordinarily expected to remain confined to the pleadings and reliefs sought by parties, the rule is flexible while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exceptional cases, where the record clearly establishes a legal entitlement and denying relief on technical grounds would perpetuate injustice, High Courts may mould relief beyond the specific prayers in a writ petition.

“…the rule that requires the parties to be strictly confined to the pleadings and the prayer clauses is not an inflexible rule insofar as exercise of writ jurisdiction is concerned…Ex facie, Article 226, which is couched in comprehensive phraseology, confers wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. Apart from writs, the High Courts may issue orders or directions in the nature of writs enabling them to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih.

“Although in exercise of writ jurisdiction the high courts are guided by the principles flowing from the CPC, they are not bound by it.”, the Court added.

Conditions For Granting Wider Relief

The judgment authored by Justice Datta laid down important safeguards governing the exercise of this exceptional jurisdiction. The Court held that relief beyond the pleadings may be granted only where:

a. if the record before the High Court clearly evinces entitlement of the suitor to a wider relief than what is claimed,

b. the respondent has been put on notice and suffers no prejudice because it has no adequate answer on merits;

c. the respondent is attempting to use procedural technicalities as a shield to defend its own statutory breach; and

d. denying relief solely because of defective pleadings would defeat a substantive legal right of a suitor.

The Bench emphasised that in such circumstances, procedural rules cannot be permitted to override substantive justice.

“One of the exceptions is when the court is convinced that the petitioner is legally entitled to more than what has been claimed, but might have claimed less due to ignorance or bona fide mistake or inelegant drafting of the writ petition by his lawyer. Since substantive justice cannot be allowed to be trumped by technicalities, if the record before the high court clearly evinces entitlement of the suitor to a wider relief than what is claimed, the opponent is put on notice and he/it has no answer, much less adequate answer, and thereby, no prejudice is caused to him/it, and it is found that the opponent is seeking to use a procedural technicality as a shield for its own statutory breach, the court in an appropriate case may, in its discretion, grant such relief as the suitor is found entitled.”, the Court observed.

Simultaneously, the Court issued a strong note of caution against the indiscriminate exercise of the power. The Court observed that High Courts are expected to adhere to the pleadings and prayers as a matter of judicial discipline, and the exception permitting relief beyond pleadings should be invoked only in rare and deserving cases.

“…there is a need to sound a word of caution. While the high courts are expected to stick to the pleadings and the prayers, and not wander beyond, by observing the rule of discipline that exists to prevent judicial overreach and surprise, the exception to the rule of doing justice despite deficient pleadings in a writ petition ought to be sparingly invoked and judiciously applied where the law and the record disclose a clear entitlement of the suitor and the court is convinced that upholding the plea raised by the opponent, based on technicality, would defeat the right. A judge who ignores both the rule and the exception, ends up either shackled by technicality or exposes himself to be accused of judicial activism.”, the court observed.

Background

The observations came while deciding the case of a CRPF constable who acquired severe visual disability during service and was medically invalidated from service in 1998.

Although his writ petition sought only disability pension, the Himachal Pradesh High Court invoked Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, a provision not specifically pleaded by the petitioner, and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

While dismissing the Union's appeal, and affirming the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court also examined the correctness of the High Court's approach, noting that the case fell within the recognised exception because the statutory protection under Section 47 was clearly available, the employee was unaware of his legal rights, and the employer was seeking to rely on procedural deficiencies despite having failed to discharge its own mandatory statutory obligations.

Also from the judgment- Supreme Court Criticises CRPF For Removing Driver Who Developed Disability, Awards Him Rs 1.25 Crore

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS BALI RAM

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Navanajay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Aditya Dhawan, Adv. Mrs. Kiran Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Negi, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Duggal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bukkle, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR