Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1406 - SUPREME COURTCivil court amenable to writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 or not - whether the view taken in SURYA DEV RAI VERSUS RAM CHANDER RAI & ORS. [2003 (8) TMI 527 - SUPREME COURT] that a writ lies Under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the civil court, which has been doubted in the reference order, is the correct view? - HELD THAT:- In TC. BASAPPA VERSUS T. NAGAPPA [1954 (5) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT], question before this Court was as to the scope of jurisdiction Under Article 226 in dealing with a writ of certiorari against the order of the Election Tribunal. This Court considered the question in the background of principles followed by superior courts in England which generally formed the basis of decisions of Indian Courts. This Court held that while broad and fundamental norms regulating exercise of writ jurisdiction had to be kept in mind, it was not necessary for Indian Courts to look back to the early history or procedural technicalities of the writ jurisdiction in England in view of express constitutional provisions. Certiorari was meant to supervise "judicial acts" which included quasi judicial functions of administrative bodies. In NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1966 (3) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT], a nine Judge Bench judgment, a judicial order of High Court was challenged as being violative of fundamental right. This Court by majority held that a judicial order of a competent court could not violate a fundamental right. Even if there was incidental violation, it could not be held to be violative of fundamental right. In RUPA ASHOK HURRA VERSUS ASHOK HURRA & ANOTHER [2002 (4) TMI 889 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that final order of this Court cannot be challenged Under Article 32 as violative of fundamental right. Judgment of this Court in SMT. TRIVENIBEN & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. [1989 (2) TMI 404 - SUPREME COURT] was referred to with approval to the effect that a judicial order could not violate a fundamental right. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system of King's Court in India and of all other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to supervision of King's Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision Under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution - Jurisdiction Under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction from jurisdiction Under Article 226 - Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled. The matters may now be listed before the appropriate Bench for further orders.
|