Constitutional remedies under Article 226
Article 226 - Constitutional Remedies
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution empowers the High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other purpose. This is a special power granted to the High Courts in India to ensure that justice is done and laws are implemented properly.
What does Article 226 say?
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs:
The High Courts have the power to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose.
Why Article 226 is important?
It is a powerful and flexible remedy available at the High Court level.
It is broader in scope than Article 32, as it can be invoked not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for any other purpose.
It provides a quick and effective remedy against unlawful actions by the State or its agencies.
Types of Writs under Article 226
Habeas Corpus: To produce a person who is detained unlawfully before the court.
Mandamus: To command a public authority to perform a public or statutory duty.
Prohibition: To prohibit lower courts or tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction.
Certiorari: To quash orders or decisions of lower courts or authorities acting without jurisdiction or violating principles of natural justice.
Quo Warranto: To challenge a person holding a public office without legal authority.
Important Case Laws Related to Article 226
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Summary: This was one of the earliest cases where the Supreme Court interpreted the scope of fundamental rights and the jurisdiction of courts.
Relevance to Article 226: The Court held that Article 226 is an independent source of remedy and does not depend on Article 32. The High Courts have original jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs, even when the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is not invoked.
Significance: This case established that High Courts have the power to enforce fundamental rights independently and provide constitutional remedies under Article 226.
2. State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (1954)
Summary: The court laid down the scope of the writ of mandamus under Article 226.
Relevance: It clarified that mandamus can be issued only to a public authority to perform a duty imposed by law and not against private individuals.
Significance: This case reinforced the idea that Article 226 protects against unlawful omissions by public authorities, thereby safeguarding public interest.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (The Judges Transfer Case)
Summary: This case dealt with the issue of transfer and appointment of judges.
Relevance: The Supreme Court expanded the ambit of Article 226 by holding that the power of High Courts to issue writs is not limited to enforcement of fundamental rights but extends to any other purpose, including protecting citizens against illegal actions of public authorities.
Significance: This case broadened the scope of Article 226, showing it as a versatile and powerful tool for judicial review beyond fundamental rights enforcement.
4. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Summary: This case involved the writ of mandamus against a public authority to fulfill a statutory duty.
Relevance: The Supreme Court held that mandamus can be issued when there is a clear legal duty imposed on a public authority, and failure to perform that duty causes injustice.
Significance: This case emphasized the importance of mandamus under Article 226 to ensure administrative accountability.
5. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa (1953)
Summary: The court dealt with the quo warranto writ.
Relevance: It was held that quo warranto could be issued to question the legality of a person holding a public office.
Significance: This case affirmed the High Court’s power under Article 226 to ensure that only legally entitled persons occupy public positions.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case Name | Writ Type | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras | General | Independent remedy under Art 226 | High Courts' independent jurisdiction |
| State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah | Mandamus | Mandamus only against public authorities | Enforcement of public duties |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India | General | Art 226 remedy beyond fundamental rights | Broadened scope of writ jurisdiction |
| R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority | Mandamus | Mandamus to enforce statutory duty | Administrative accountability |
| K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa | Quo Warranto | Challenging illegal occupancy of public office | Ensures legality in public offices |
RELATED Blog
0 comments