Articles 32 & 226 : Supreme Court Judgments On Scope Of Writ Jurisdiction [2021]

Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts respectively, to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. The following are judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in which it dealt with the scope of this power.On Article 226Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Utilised By A Litigant Only To Take Chance: Supreme Court[Case: Vellanki Frame Works v. Commercial Tax Officer; Citation: LL 2021 SC 19]"In our view, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be utilised by a litigant only to take chance and then to seek recourse to the other remedy after failing in its attempt on the basic merits of the case before the High Court", the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari remarked while dismissing an appeal filed against the judgment passed by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.Presence Of Arbitration Clause In Contract Between State Instrumentality & Private Party Does Not Oust Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Supreme Court[Case: UNITECH Limited v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 92]A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that presence of an arbitration clause within a contract between a state instrumentality and a private party is not an absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the realm of contract.Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Can Be Invoked To Quash FIR If It Is Found To Be Abuse Of Process Of Law: Supreme Court[Case: Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma; Citation: LL 2021 SC 123]The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that a High Court, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can quash an FIR if the same is found to be an abuse of process of law. In this case, a writ petition preferred by the accused for quashing the first information report registered under under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code against them was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The accused's contention was that the FIR against him is a counterblast to the cheque bounce complaint filed against the complainant.Writ Petition Under Article 226 Not Maintainable Against Orders Passed By State Consumer Commission: Supreme Court[Case: Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu ICU v. Manoj Upadhyaya; Citation: LL 2021 SC 163]A bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari opined that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging judgments and orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not maintainable."We cannot help but to state in absolute terms that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Once the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass the statutory appeal to such higher court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," it was observed.Petition Styled As One Under Article 226 Would Not Bar High Court To Exercise Its Jurisdiction Which Otherwise It Possesses: Supreme Court[Case: Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board; Citation: LL 2021 SC 195]With respect to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta observed that a petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses under a Statute and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution.HC Under Article 226 Should Not Entertain A Dispute Which Is Arbitrable Unless There Is An Issue Of Public Interest: Supreme Court[Case: Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon Limited v. Haryana Mass Rapid Transport Corporation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 194]A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed that ordinarily a High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has to decline to entertain a dispute which is arbitrable, unless there is a fundamental issue of public interest. In this case the High Court had entertained the writ petition even though there was an arbitration clause between the parties. In appeal, the Apex Court noted that the High Court was concerned over a fundamental issue of public interest, which was the hardship that would be caused to commuters who use the rapid metro as a vehicle for mass transport in Gurgaon.Existence Of Arbitration Clause...

Articles 32 & 226 : Supreme Court Judgments On Scope Of Writ Jurisdiction [2021]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Articles 32 & 226 : Supreme Court Judgments On Scope Of Writ Jurisdiction [2021]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers