2015 (2) TMI 1406 - SC - Indian Laws

Civil 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Distinction between jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
3. Validity of the legal proposition laid down in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:

The primary issue before the court was to determine if judicial orders of civil courts could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the two-judge bench in Surya Dev Rai had held that such orders were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. However, this view was contested on the grounds that it did not align with the precedent set by the nine-judge bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, which held that certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior courts of civil jurisdiction. The court emphasized that judicial orders of civil courts could be challenged through appellate or revisional powers or under Article 227, but not under Article 226. This position was supported by previous judgments, including those in Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., Mirajkar, and Rupa Ashok Hurra, which consistently held that judicial orders could not be challenged as violative of fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226. The court concluded that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

2. Distinction between jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:

The court elaborated on the distinction between Articles 226 and 227. Article 226 pertains to the original jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. In contrast, Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. The court clarified that while Article 226 could be invoked for issuing writs like certiorari against quasi-judicial orders, it could not be used against judicial orders of civil courts. Article 227, on the other hand, allows the High Court to supervise and correct errors of jurisdiction in subordinate courts and tribunals. The court noted that despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Act 46 of 1999, the scope of Article 227 remained unaffected, but it did not expand the High Court's power of superintendence.

3. Validity of the legal proposition laid down in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.:

The court critically examined the judgment in Surya Dev Rai, which had held that judicial orders of civil courts could be challenged under Article 226. The court found that this view was contrary to the established legal principles and precedents. It was noted that Surya Dev Rai had incorrectly assumed that the distinction between Articles 226 and 227 had been obliterated. The court reaffirmed that the scope of Article 226 did not extend to judicial orders of civil courts and that such orders could only be challenged under Article 227. The court also addressed the argument that the view in Surya Dev Rai had been approved by larger benches in subsequent cases, clarifying that references to Surya Dev Rai in those cases did not pertain to the issue of maintainability of a writ under Article 226. Consequently, the court overruled the legal proposition laid down in Surya Dev Rai.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the distinct and separate jurisdictions under Articles 226 and 227, with the latter being the appropriate remedy for challenging judicial orders of civil courts. The contrary view expressed in Surya Dev Rai was overruled. The matters were directed to be listed before the appropriate bench for further orders.