ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Author: Gaurav Purohit

INTRODUCTION
The Writ Jurisdiction is a strong and significant instrument given to the High Courts under the Constitution of India. The motivation behind writ jurisdiction is to guarantee that fundamental directions as writs can be given both as administrative orders as on the judicial side. As known, the Constitution of India has offered the power to the High Court’s under Article 226 to give directions or orders or writs in the idea of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari according to the individual prerequisite and the need. Under Article 227, the High Courts are provided with the power of General Superintendence over all Courts as well as Tribunals. The powers vested to the High Court under Article 227 are more extensive than the one gave to the High Court by Article 226. This is because the intensity of Superintendence under Article 227 isn’t dependent upon the details of the method or conventional shackles which are found in Writ Jurisdiction
Articles 226 and 227 are the essential parts of the Constitution that characterize the forces of the High Court.


ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION ON INDIA
Article 226, enables the High Courts to issue, to any individual or authority, including the administration (in suitable cases), directions, orders or writs, remembering writs for the idea of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto prohibition, or any other.
Article 226(2) states that regardless of the seat of government or authority or residence of the individual isn’t in the local jurisdiction of the High court still high court can give direction, order to such government, authority, or individual if the reason for activity completely or to some extent emerges comparable to its jurisdiction.
Article 226(3) states that the (i)When against a party any interim request is given by the high court in the method of interim injunction or remain, or any procedures identifying with a petition under Article 226 without (a) giving a duplicate of the petition or duplicates of all documents of the interim order to such party and (b) offering chance to hear.
(ii) And if such party makes an application to the High court for the get-away of interim order or petition and outfits a copy of the application of vacation to the party in whose favour such interim order or to the counsel of the party.
(iii) Then the High court will discard the application inside a time of about fourteen days from the date on which it is received or, from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever date is later
or on the other hand where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the following day subsequently on which the High Court is open
(iv) and if the application isn’t so discarded by the High court, the interim order will, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day will be vacated.
Article 226(4) states that the power given to the high court to give direction, order, or writ won’t derogate the power given to the Supreme court under Article 32(2).


SCOPE OF ARTICLE 226
The extent of Article 226 is wider than that of Article 32. Article 226 not just provides the power to give direction, order, or writs not implement fundamental rights yet also for the enforcement of different rights as well. Article 226 engages the High court to provide directions, orders, or writs to any individual, authority, government, or public authorities. Article 226 likewise discusses the interim order for writs and expresses the component of how interim order will be discarded by the High courts.


WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 226
Habeas Corpus
-The significance of the writ of Habeas Corpus is “a writ requiring an individual in custody of illicit detainment to be brought under the watchful eye of a Judge or into court, particularly to secure the person’s release unless there are any Lawful grounds for his or her detention.
Mandamus – A writ given as an order to an inferior court or ordering an individual to perform his or her public or statutory duty.
Prohibition – A writ of denial or prohibition is issued fundamentally to keep a second-rate court or council from surpassing its purview in cases forthcoming before it or acting in opposition to the standards of regular equity.
Quo warranto – This essentially signifies “by what warrant?”. This writ is given to take a look at the legality of the claim of an individual or any public office. It limits the individual or authority to act in an office which he/she isn’t qualified for; and hence, stops usurpation of public office by anybody. This writ is appropriate to the public workplaces only and not to private offices.
Certiorari- Certiorari signifies to be ensured or to certify. This writ can be issued by the Apex Court or any High Court for quashing any previous order passed by an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority.
The High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the requirement of any of the basic rights presented by part III of the Constitution or for some other reason.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLE 32 AND 226

ARTICLE 32ARTICLE 226
1. Article 32 offers power to the Supreme Court.1. Article 226 provides power to the High Court.
2. Article 32 is invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights.2. Article 226 is for the implementation of fundamental rights and other legal rights as well.
3. Power of Apex Court is Narrower as Compared to Power of High Court Under Article 226.3. The Power to High court under Article 226 is wider than the power of the Apex Court under Article 32.
4. Article 32 is suspended during the time of the crisis (Emergency)4. Article 226 can’t be suspended during a crisis (Emergency)
5. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right.5. Article 226 is not a Fundamental Right.
6. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is Wider as compare to the High Court under Article 226.6. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226 is smaller than the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Supreme court under Article 226.

ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Article 227 provides that each High Court will have administration over all courts and tribunals all through the regions corresponding to which it practices purview (apart from a court shaped under a law-related with military or armed forces).
The High Court under Article 227 can –

  • Call for returns from courts.
  • Make and issue general guidelines and recommend structures for controlling the practice and procedures of such courts.
  • Recommend structures in which books, entries, and records be kept by the officials of any such courts.
  • Settle tables of charges to be permitted to the sheriff and all agents and officials of such courts.


LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surya Devi Rai versus Ram Chander Rai, depended on a few constitutions Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex court, one of which was Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. versus Smt. Radhikabai and Anr, which sets down the scope, force, and differences between Article 226 and Article 227.
The most important difference between the two articles is that Proceedings under Article 226 are in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while procedures under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but rather just administrative. Article 227 considerably reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, the power of administration has been reached out by this Article to tribunals too. Even though the power is likened to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is planned to be utilized sparingly and just in fitting cases to keep the subordinate courts and councils inside the limits of their position or authority and not for correcting simple errors.
The court additionally saw that power under Article 227 will be practised distinctly in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice, for example, when:
The court or tribunal has expected a jurisdiction which it doesn’t have.
The court or tribunal has failed to practice a jurisdiction which it has, such failure occasioning failure of justice, and
The Jurisdiction however accessible is being practised in a way that commensurate to violating the restrictions of Jurisdiction.
The Court in the case of Surya Devi rai versus Ram Chander Rai, further saw that there is lack of information on the difference between the comprehension of Article 226 and 227 and thus it is a typical custom with the legal counsellors marking their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, however, such practice has been deplored in some legal proclamations.
In the wake of reeling on the catena of decisions of the apex court, the Supreme Court in Surya Devi Rai versus Smash Chander Rai set out the following differences:
The writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction under article 226 by the High Court; the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 is not an original jurisdiction and in such manner, it is much the same as appellate revisional or corrective jurisdiction.
In a writ of certiorari, the record of the procedures having been ensured and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court whenever if inclined to practice its jurisdiction, may just revoke or subdue the procedures and afterwards do no more (Art 226). In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction (Art 227) the High Court may not just suppress or set aside the impugned procedures or order yet it might likewise make such directions as the facts and conditions of the case may warrant, might be by the method of managing the inferior court or tribunal concerning how it would now continue further or over again as recognized to or guided by the High Court. In suitable cases the High Court, while practising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute the impugned decision with its very own decision, as the inferior court or tribunal ought to have made.
The Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is fit for being practised on a prayer made by or for the benefit of the party aggrieved yet the power presented under Article 227 viz the supervisory jurisdiction is equipped for being practised Suo moto also.


CONTRAST BETWEEN ARTICLE 226 AND ARTICLE 227
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Decision revealed in Ram Kishan Fauji versus the State of Haryana has clarified that under Article 226, the High Courts have the power to give directions, orders, and writs to any individual or authority including any Government. Under Article 227, each High Court has the intensity of Superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territory comparable to which it exercises jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the power to issue writs isn’t equivalent to the power of administration. There is a barely recognizable difference or differentiation between the two. In some cases, there has been disarray that while testing a decision passed by a regulatory authority, regardless of whether the petition is to be filed under Article 226 or Article 227. There have been occurrences where a legal advisor to dodge this protest from the Court, labels the petition both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.


PROVISION OF WRIT APPEAL
The High Court’s by the goodness of their standards have given a privilege of request against the order went under Article 226. It has likewise involved discussion that whether a request passed by the High Court while choosing a request under Article 227 can be tested by the method of claim before the Division Bench of the concerned High Court. The said circumstance was managed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal. The Supreme Court while deciding the said issue held that the classification is of no outcome and it is the idea of the help looked for and the debate included which decides the Article which is appropriate, for example regardless of whether a Petition is to be treated under Article 226 or Article 227. As expressed by above, if the idea of the supplication relates just to subduing or issuance of a particular writ against the express, the equivalent will be considered under Article 226 independent of its terminology. Consequently, regardless of whether a request was recorded and marked as Article 227 however the equivalent in the wake of analysing its substance comes out to be that of an appeal under Article 226 unquestionably, the disputant has an appropriate for documenting the intrigue as given under the standards of a separate High Court.


CRITICAL ANALYSIS
It is the Paradox there is no distinction between Article 226 and 227 or maybe this is no more Res-Integra that the two Articles 226, just as 227, work under various circumstances and various areas. The Jurisdiction of a Court under Article 226 just as 227 are likewise different and the power under both the Articles is different. At the danger of reiteration, it is expressed that under Article 226, High Courts have the power to give directions, orders and issue writs to any individual or authority including any Government while under Article 227, each High Court has an intensity of Superintendence offered to Courts and Tribunals throughout the territory according to which it exercises jurisdiction.
The Power of administration presented upon each High Court by Article 227 is a Supervisory Jurisdiction which is intended to guarantee that subordinate Courts and Tribunals act inside the constraints of their power and as per law. The orders, directions, and writs under Article 226 are not expected for the reason and power of administration gave upon the High Court by Article 227. Or maybe the power given under Article 227 is notwithstanding the power presented upon the High Court by Article 226. The way that a similar outcome can now and again be accomplished by two unique processes doesn’t imply that these two processes are the same.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The jurisdiction of the HC under Arts 226 & 227 is distinct and independent of every other. Judicial review is a vital component of the rule of law, which could be a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Every State action has got to be tested on the anvil of rule of law which exercise is performed, when the occasion arises by the explanation of a doubt raised therein behalf, by the courts. The scope of Article 226 and Article 227 is kind of vast. The tribunal has the facility to correct errors of jurisdiction. But it cannot disturb verify findings of the facts because they’re within the appellate Court’s jurisdiction only. Another power of judicature is that the power of revision. It enables the revision Court to take care of the subsequent of a finding

  • Correctness
  • Legality
  • Appropriateness
  • Sentence or order recorded/passed Under Article 226,

The state Supreme Court can’t be considered a Revision or appeals court because when any subordinate Court rejects the order, the legal remedy of appeal is obtainable to the aggrieved party to urge a solution of the question of violation of fundamental right. By enlarging the scope of Article 32 and 226 Judiciary has brought Justice and revolutionized Constitutional jurisprudence and it makes the Constitution a Living, Dynamic Document. Judicial Activism and PIL help participation of spirited and enlightened people and help to supply justice to the poor and therefore the oppressed. Judiciary isn’t the ultimate answer to any or all administrative ills and improvement in the system should be co-ordinated efforts by all organs of the state. Judiciary should act as a Lighthouse, not a destination in itself. It should be a self-sufficient and self-restrained manner.

REFERENCES:
The Constitution of India 1950

Image Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/-fRAIQHKcc0

Leave a Reply