Article 226

When the framers of the Constitution incorporated above mentioned Article into the Constitution of India, they might not have anticipated that this provision would evolve into one of the most efficient mechanism for the enforcement of rights and the control of arbitrary state action. Prima facie this Article appears procedural, merely conferring writ jurisdiction upon High Courts. However, over the decades, it has transformed into a cornerstone of constitutional governance and judicial review. The writs mentioned in this Article are prerogative writs because they had their origin in prerogative power of superintendence over it’s officers and subordinate courts.

Earlier, Article 226 was viewed as a supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that statutory and public authorities are acting within the limits of law. High Courts were empowered to issue these prerogative writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto. Unlike Article 32, Article 226 extends not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also “for any other purpose.” This phrase significantly widened the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction, enabling them to intervene in cases of legal injustice, administrative arbitrariness, and abuse of power.

This widened scope of Article 226 was first recognised in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, reported in AIR 1954 SC 440, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts is not confined by technicalities and is broader than that of English courts running on common law. This marked the beginning of a liberal and purposive interpretation of writ powers of the High Courts.

A significant doctrinal limitation was laid down in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, reported in AIR 1952 SC 12, wherein the Court held that Article 226 cannot be invoked for mere declaratory relief in the absence of enforcement of a legal right. This view made sure that writ jurisdiction remained a tool for concrete justice rather than abstract adjudication.

The true transformative character of Article 226 was articulated in Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, reported in AIR 1966 SC 81, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court described Article 226 as couched in “comprehensive phraseology” enabling High Courts to “reach injustice wherever it is found.” This judgment marked a decisive shift from a restrictive to an expansive interpretation.

Article 226’s importance in the constitution was well-established in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, where the Court held that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It made it clear that the High Courts’ authority can’t be taken away, not even by amending the constitution, so that they can keep an eye on things to make sure everything is justified in law.

Clarity on the scope of supervisory and corrective jurisdiction was provided in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, where the Court elaborated upon the distinction between writ jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction, reinforcing the High Courts’ authority to correct jurisdictional errors and grave procedural irregularities.

Interim Relief under Article 226:

The power to grant interim relief under this article is a helpful tool that comes with the writ jurisdiction. It’s there to keep the main issue of the dispute safe and to stop any serious damage from happening while we come to the final decision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, reported in AIR 1952 SC 12, clarified that interim relief cannot be granted as a standalone measure in the absence of a substantive proceeding seeking final relief. Interim directions must be in aid of, and not independent of, the final relief claimed. Over time, courts have consistently held that while exercising such power, the High Courts must apply settled principles governing interim relief, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury, ensuring that such orders do not virtually amount to granting final relief at the interim stage.

Interim Orders under Article 226:

Interim orders made under this Article are up to the discretion of the court. They need to carefully consider all the circumstances , especially when the state action is under challenge . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260, cautioned that interim orders, especially those having the effect of staying the operation of fiscal or public laws, should not be granted lightly, as they may seriously prejudice public interest. The Court emphasised that judicial discretion must be exercised with circumspection, and interim orders should not disrupt administrative functioning unless a strong and compelling case is made out.

While this Article confers wide powers upon High Courts, it is a settled principle of constitutional law that courts do not sit in judgment over the wisdom of policy decisions nor do they ordinarily direct the State to frame or adopt a particular policy. In BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that matters of economic and administrative policy fall within the domain of the executive, and judicial review is limited to examining the legality, arbitrariness, or constitutional validity of such decisions. The Court cannot substitute its own views for that of the executive or compel the State to legislate or formulate policy in a particular manner. This principle preserves the doctrine of separation of powers, ensuring that while courts act as guardians of legality, they do not encroach upon the policy-making functions of the State.

One of the key things about this Article is that it’s flexible. Unlike Article 32, which is a fundamental right, you might not get relief under this Article if there’s another way to solve the problem, if it’s taking too long or if there are questions about what happened that aren’t clear. This way, the court uses its power carefully while still being able to do a lot. As time has passed, this article has grown from just a way to handle cases to a really powerful part of the constitution. It helps make sure that everyone who uses public power is responsible to the law.