THE POWER OF HIGH COURTS UNDER ARTICLE 226

ABSTRACT

This study evaluates the power of high courts under article 226 [1]of the Constitution of India. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution gives High Courts the authority to protect basic and legal rights by issuing writs. This essay explores the history, extent, constraints, and importance of this exceptional capacity. It explores seminal rulings and assesses how Article 226 strikes a balance between judicial activism and restraint, guaranteeing justice in India’s federal system.A potent tool for upholding justice, Article 226 of the Indian Constitution gives High Courts the jurisdiction to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for other legal purposes. Article 226 is more expansive than Article 32[2], which only addresses Fundamental Rights; it permits people to contest administrative decisions and legal infractions. Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto are the five categories of writs that the High Courts may grant based on the specifics of the complaint. Protecting the rule of law and upholding checks and balances within the governance structure are vital functions of this discretionary power, which is also subject to territorial jurisdiction and the availability of alternative remedies.

Keywords

Writs, Constitution, Discretionary, Territorial jurisdiction, Fundamental rights, Constitutional remedies.

INTRODUCTION

The constitution of India provides fundamental rights to all its citizens, so it is necessary that these rights are protected and enforced by courts, therefore article 32 and 226 entitle people to reach supreme court and high court for remedies for the infringement of fundamental rights. Indian Constitution’s Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue writs to enforce legal rights, including basic rights. This authority, which reflects the constitutional commitment to preserve the rule of law, guarantees that justice is available at the state level. Article 226 is a crucial instrument in the Indian judicial system since it permits High Courts to handle a wider range of matters than Article 32, which restricts the Supreme Court to upholding fundamental rights. It is a powerful tool that enables individuals to directly approach the High Court in cases of violation of rights or in cases involving illegality of administrative actions. Article 226 states that Notwithstanding Article 32, each High Court has the authority to issue directives, orders, or writs, including those in the form of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo Warranto, and certiorari, or any combination of these, to any individual or authority, including, in appropriate cases, any Government, for the enforcement of any of the rights granted by Part III and for any other purpose. “Generally speaking, when the issue is fundamentally a factual one, the High Court does not use its authority under Article 226. Similarly, the courts will not consider Article 226 petitions if the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Furthermore, the court may refuse to provide relief under this article if there is an excessive delay in getting to the court.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Article 226’s historical development can be linked to the creation of the Indian Constitution as well as the larger development of the writ system during British colonial control. Its origins are in English common law, when writs were first created to guarantee justice and the efficient operation of public institutions. English common law gave rise to the idea of writs, which were used by courts such as the King’s Bench to monitor public officials and guarantee that the law was followed. The writs—Quo Warranto, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, and Certiorari—were established as checks on judicial and administrative abuses. The Supreme Court of Calcutta’s charter (1774) also played a role in establishing the writ system in India during British rule. British citizens or inhabitants of the Presidency towns were the main beneficiaries of the writ jurisdiction that the Supreme Courts in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay exercised. This writ power was passed down to the High Courts created by the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. After that the Indian Constitution’s founders discussed the High Courts’ authority in great detail. They acknowledged the necessity of preserving and extending the writ jurisdiction in order to defend rights in an independent India, having been influenced by the colonial experience. Members, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, stressed that writ jurisdiction would be essential to the rule of law and judicial review. The necessity for a strong system to uphold fundamental rights (which are protected in Part III of the Constitution) led to the inclusion of Article 226 to give High Courts the authority to grant writs for “any other purpose” (which is more expansive than Article 32 of the Constitution) in addition to the enforcement of fundamental rights.

SCOPE OF ARTICLE 226

Broad Jurisdiction

According to Article 226 High Courts have the authority to grant writs for the enforcement of regular legal rights as well as fundamental rights. This wide range sets it apart from Article 32, which only covers fundamental rights. In the case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [3], the Supreme Court explained that Article 226 grants High Courts wide discretionary power to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. After that in the case of Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer[4], the Supreme Court noted that Article 226 is designed to ensure justice in a broad sense and is not confined to Fundamental Rights.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Article 226 (2) states that power granted by clause (1) to issue directions, orders, or writs to any Government, authority, or individual may also be utilized by any High Court exercising jurisdiction concerning the areas where the cause of action, either in whole or in part, occurs for the application of such power, regardless of whether the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such individual falls outside those areas. A High Court’s jurisdiction is typically limited to the geographical borders of the state or states it serves. For instance, cases in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh fall under the purview of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. As long as the cause of action has arisen (even partially) within the High Court’s jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction even if the Government authority’s office or headquarters is located beyond its borders. For e.g. A writ petition challenging an order issued by a government body with its headquarters in Delhi that affects a person or entity in Bangalore (Karnataka) may be heard by the Karnataka High Court because the order’s effects are felt throughout Karnataka, giving rise to a portion of the cause of action there.

TYPES OF WRITS ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE 226

Habeas Corpus: The term “Habeas Corpus” is derived from Latin, meaning “You shall have the body.” It is a fundamental writ and is very essential remedies in constitutional law. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order that requires the person or authority holding someone else to appear in court and provide evidence that their custody was lawful.

The objective of this writ is to protect personal freedom and ensure that no person is wrongfully detained without lawful justification. In order to enforce fundamental rights, people may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 (Supreme Court). Under Article 226 High Courts have the authority to grant writs of habeas corpus for a variety of legal rights, including fundamental rights.

When is the writ of habeas Corpus issued?

Someone is imprisoned or jailed without cause.
The detention is a violation of the Constitution’s fundamental rights.
The detention procedure contains procedural irregularities or instances of authority abuse.

In the case of State of Madras v. A.K. Gopalan1950[5] , the Supreme Court decided that habeas corpus is a recourse to challenge unlawful detentions and that imprisonment legislation must rigorously adhere to the Constitution.

In the case of R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh [6] , the court held that Habeas Corpus can be sought to address issues with children’s and vulnerable people’s detention.

Mandamus: Derived from the Latin term meaning “we command,” this writ is one of the fundamental instruments for enforcing the rule of law. A mandamus is a judicial writ that a court issues to a lower court, public authority, or government official, requiring them to carry out a legally required task. The objective of this writ is to guarantee that public officials carry out their responsibilities in compliance with the law and behave within their bounds. In order to enforce fundamental rights, people may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus under Article 32 (Supreme Court).

Under Article 226 High Courts have the authority to grant writs of mandamus for a variety of legal rights, including fundamental rights.

When is the writ of mandamus issued?

A public official or organisation declines to carry out a legally mandated task.
The obligation in question is statutory and public, not optional.
The person that has been wronged has no other viable recourse.
The petitioner is legally entitled to demand that the duty be performed

In State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose[7] ,the court emphasized that Mandamus is not issued when alternative remedies exist unless those remedies are inadequate or ineffective.

Certiorari: The term “Certiorari” is derived from Latin, meaning “to be certified” or “to be informed.” One of the five writs granted by Indian constitutional law is certiorari, which is mainly granted by a higher court to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body in order to review their ruling or actions. A higher court can issue a writ known as certiorari to overturn a lower court, tribunal, or administrative body’s decision or order after it has been made:

Without authority
In contravention of natural justice norms.
With obvious legal mistakes on the face of the record.

The objective of this writ is to ensure judicial accountability and prevent misuse or abuse of judicial or quasi judicial power. The writ of certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights may be issued by the Supreme Court under article 32. Under article 226 High courts have the authority to grant certiorari for both legal/statutory rights and fundamental rights.

When is the writ of certiorari issued?

Overreach of Authority: The lower court or tribunal does not have the authority or jurisdiction to act.
Absence of Authority: Authority over a matter is assumed by a body lacking jurisdiction.
Legal Error: On the face of the record, there is a glaring legal error.
Natural Justice Violation: if values such as the absence of bias or the right to a fair trial (audi alteram partem) are broken.
Authority’s Subordinate Nature: Only a court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body functioning in a judicial capacity may be the target of the writ.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar [8], the Supreme Court decided that judicial rulings from the High Court operating under its purview could not be challenged through certiorari.

Prohibition: It is derived from Latin word, meaning “ to forbid”. A judicial writ known as prohibition is sent by a higher court to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body, instructing it to halt the proceedings of a case that is outside of its purview. Preventing subordinate courts or authorities from acting above their authority or against natural justice principles is the main goal of the writ. It serves as a prophylactic measure. The Supreme Court can issue Prohibition to protect Fundamental Rights under article 32. Under article 226, the High Courts can issue Prohibition for both Fundamental Rights and legal/statutory rights.

When is the writ of prohibition issued?

Overreach of Authority: The case being heard by the subordinate court or tribunal is outside of its legal purview.
Absence of Authority: The subject matter and parties engaged are outside the authority’s jurisdiction.
Natural Justice Violation: if basic values such as a fair trial are not followed.
Legal Error: if the body is reading the law incorrectly or if there is a glaring legal error.

In the case of S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India1967 [9](, the court clarified that Prohibition could only be issued for judicial or quasi-judicial functions, not administrative ones.

Quo Warranto: The term “Quo Warranto” is Latin for “By what authority?

One legal tool used to challenge the validity of someone holding public office is the writ of quo Warranto. It gives the judiciary the authority to examine whether a person in a public office is legally permitted to occupy that position. By guaranteeing that only eligible and duly appointed people hold public office, this writ safeguards the public. The Supreme Court can issue the writ of Quo Warranto for enforcing Fundamental Rights under article 32. Under article 226, High Courts can issue this writ not only for Fundamental Rights but also for legal/statutory rights.

When is the writ of quo Warranto issued?

Illegal Office Occupation: The person is not legally qualified or eligible to take the position.
Legal Violation During Appointment: The relevant legal provisions were not followed in the appointment process.
Lack of Power to Hold Office: The individual does not have the legal authority to serve in such capacity.
In the case of N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose ,[10] 2009 the court observed that the writ could be issued even for appointments violating principles of equality under Article 14.

LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE 226

The limitations of article 226 are that only inside their borders or in cases where the cause of action partially or completely arises can High Courts grant writs. Also, it does not include only private or contractual rights, but also includes legal and fundamental rights. Moreover, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance (such as a fundamental rights violation), writs are not granted if there is an effective alternative remedy. Furthermore, High Courts’ role is restricted to rectifying legal or jurisdictional errors; they are not permitted to serve as appellate authorities. This rule only applies to public officials or organisations carrying out official tasks and it is available against private individuals or bodies.The court has the authority to issue writs, but it is not a given. Unless it is unconstitutional, courts avoid becoming involved in administrative or policy decisions because of the policy issues.Under Article 359, writ powers may be limited in times of national emergency. Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked by foreign nationals outside of India.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ARTICLE 226

High Courts have the authority to uphold other legal rights in addition to Fundamental Rights and thus has a broad jurisdiction. It also provides oversight of legislative and executive acts playing the rule of judicial review. It also provides decentralises remedies, enabling regional access to justice. It protects the fundamental and constitutional rights of the citizens of India by preventing the abuse of people’ rights by the state. It prevents capricious acts by public officials hence upholding the concept of rule of law. It adjusts to a variety of legal matters, including administrative and quasi-judicial authorities. By giving citizens another way to voice their complaints, Article 226 strengthens constitutional remedies and serves as a supplement to Article 32. By requiring authorities to act legally, openly, and within the bounds of the constitution, Article 226 guarantees public accountability.

CONCLUSION

The quote “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” was offered by Martin Luther King. This implies that any unjust action or injustice that takes place anywhere in the world will spread and be unacceptable elsewhere. As a result, all of the justice that has been done will be compromised, and everyone will be looking for ways to experience the same unfairness. Furthermore, there must be no prejudice inside the system or against the people themselves. For this reason, the concept of writ was added to Common Law to keep administrative processes under control.

As a strong defender of justice, Article 226 gives High Courts the authority to defend citizens against rights abuses and guarantee accountability in government. Justice is made available at the regional level by bridging the divide between the state and the individual by facilitating the enforcement of both fundamental and legal rights. Because of its extensive reach and adaptability, it is a fundamental component of India’s constitutional system, upholding the rule of law and deterring abuse of authority. In the end, Article 226 strengthens public confidence in the legal system by demonstrating the judiciary’s dedication to justice, equity, and the defence of individual liberty. It guarantees that no authority is above the law and serves as a ray of hope for individuals looking for justice.

REFERENCES

Ipleaders, all you need to know about article 226 of the constitution https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-article-226-of-the-indian-constitution/ ( last visited: 15^th December 2024)
Indian kanoon, article 226 in Indian constitution https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/ (15^th December 2024)
Constitution of India net, Power of High Courts to issue certain writs https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-226-power-of-high-courts-to-issue certain-writs/ (15th December, 2024)

[1] Article 226 of the Constitution of India

[2] Article 32 of the Indian constitution

[3] T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa 1954 AIR 440, 1955 SCR 250,

[4] Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer AIR 1966 SC 81, [1965] 57 ITR 349 (SC), [1965] 3 SCR 536, AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 81

[5] State of Madras v. A.K Gopalan AIR 1950 SC 27

[6] R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1946

[7] State of West Bengal V. Subodh Gopal Bose AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 92, 1967 MADLW 206

[8] State of Maharashtra v. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar 1967 AIR, 1 1966 SCR (3) 744,

[9] S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1274, 1967

[10] N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose, AIR ONLINE 2009 SC 178, (2009) 4 MAD LJ 343 (2009) 8 SCALE 351

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.