Principles For Issuing Writ Of Certiorari Under Article 226 : Supreme Court Summarises

In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala summarised the cardinal principles governing the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly concerning the issuance of a writ of certiorari.The judgment in this case Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das was written by Justice Pardiwala.1. High Court Not Appellate Tribunal under Article 226The first principle underscores that when a High Court issues a writ of certiorari under Article 226, it does not morph into an Appellate Tribunal. Unlike appellate bodies, the High Court abstains from reevaluating the evidence presented before the lower tribunal. "It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal", the judgment stated. "The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking", the judgment added,2. Substantial Justice through exercise of discretionThe second cardinal principle emphasizes the discretionary nature of Article 226's extraordinary jurisdiction. Even if the High Court identifies an action or order as illegal and invalid, it can choose not to overturn it to ensure that substantial justice prevails among the parties involved. Article 226 offers a unique remedy rooted in addressing legal injury, guided by discretion. This allows the High Court to weigh public interest and equity while rendering decisions. This principle underscores the innate flexibility in this jurisdiction, enabling the High Court to consider not only legal aspects but also practical and equitable considerations."While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not", the Court observed.Enhancing Clarity: Insights from Justice B.K. MukherjeeThe judgment noted that the essential features of a writ of certiorari, including a brief history, have been very exhaustively explained by Justice B.K. Mukherjea, J. in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 440Justice B.K. Mukherjea observed “In granting a writ of ‘certiorari’, the superior court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal”Solidifying Principles in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad IshaqueThe case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque established 3 fundamental propositions governing this writ. “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.”The Supreme Court further elaborated that a court with jurisdiction has the power to pronounce both accurate and erroneous judgments within its subject matter jurisdiction. This policy prevents higher courts from supplanting their own findings through a writ of certiorari, thereby upholding the legislation's intent.Writ doesn’t extend to correcting errors of fact: Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477Further shaping the contours of this legal terrain, this case reaffirmed the writ's role in correcting errors of law on the face of the record. However, it clarified that the writ does not extend to errors of fact. Inferior court findings of fact are not open to reexamination by higher courts, even if they seem incorrect. Exceptions arise when an impugned finding has no evidence supporting it or results from the incorrect admission or refusal of evidence. In such instances, the writ can be sought. Nevertheless, a finding of fact cannot be challenged due to insufficient or inadequate evidence before the tribunal.Exercising Restraint: Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chandra Rai 2003 (6) SCC 675The Court referred to this case which underscored the...

Principles For Issuing Writ Of Certiorari Under Article 226 : Supreme Court Summarises

Suraj Parmar

Tags