You are on page 1of 6

227.

Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court


(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any
such courts

Allahabad High Court: While discussing the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court, the Court said that this power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior
courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority . Stating that the scope of judicial
review is very limited and narrow, it was held that it does not vest the High Court with
unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the
limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal but to remove manifest and patent errors of
law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. It must be restricted to cases of
grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where
grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes and that it must be exercised
most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The Court was of the opinion that the
independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of
paramount importance just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their
judicial functions. Moreover, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the
nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter
the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence .Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by
Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally
perverse.

Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227
substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915,
excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article to tribunals as
well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under
Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of
keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors.

The court further observed that power under Article 227 shall be exercised only in cases
occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when:

(i) The court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) The court or
tribunal has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a
failure of justice, and
(iii) The jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to
overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.

The Constitution of India is the Supreme law of the country. It is the document which bestows
Fundamental Rights and also provides the right to go to Supreme and High Courts. Indian constitution
also lays down the power of high courts and supreme court to hear any matter within their territorisl
jurisdiction under aricle 227 and 141 respectively of Indian constitution.

Powers under article 227 of Indian constitution are supervisory powers. Article 227
substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915,
excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article to tribunals as
well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under
Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of
keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors. The scope of article 227 have been in a great conflict. The power
hampers where there is an alternative remedy is available with the parties.

The courts have in many jugements have tried to solve the issue but every judgement have a
conterory view. Courts have always came up with a different view in this regards have
always failed to give answer to the issue wherein a gross mistake has been commited by the
lower court or tribunal. Accordingly there is a great confusion regarding the approaching the
upper court or tribunal.

Consumer protection act defines its own jurisdiction and courts wherin there is a defalt of
service by one party , through consumer protection act the govt. have established ]tribunal at
all levels from district consumer forum under section __ , state consumer forum ubder
section__ , and national consumer forum under section __.

The act also defines the power of state consumer court to review the decisions of district
consumer forum under section __. The act under section __ defines the powers of national
consumer court to hear the appeals against the order of the state consumer forum and if the
aggrevied party is not satisfied with the decision of the national consumer court than the
aggrieved party can move to supreme court under section ___. Of the consumer protection
act.

However the act fails to determined the power vested to high courts under articlwe 226 and
227 of constitiion of india. The act no where mentions that aggrieved party can take an
atrenative remedy available to them in the form of appeal in high court under aricle 227 of
constitution of india.

In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the courts have devised self-imposed rules of
discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative
efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have
regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the Legislature in
exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise
of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and
avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings
to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior
court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction though available to be exercised only at the conclusion
of the proceedings, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise
power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings.

However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error
committed by the inferior court or tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have
concluded.

In Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors. Vs. Siva Ram Singh & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 118, the scope of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution came up for the consideration of this Court in the context of Sections
435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code which prohibits a second revision to the High Court against
decision in first revision rendered by the Sessions Judge. On a review of earlier decisions, the three-Judges
Bench summed up the position of law as under :-

(i) that the powers conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot, in any way, be
curtailed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure;

(ii) the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 is restricted. The power of superintendence
conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the
subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors;

(iii) that the power of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not greater than the power
under Article 226 of the Constitution;

(iv) that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to correct an
error of fact which only a superior Court can do in exercise of its statutory power as the Court of Appeal; the
High Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, convert itself into a Court of Appeal.

Later, a two-judge Bench of this Court in Baby Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 310,
clarified that in spite of the revisional jurisdiction being not available to the High Court, it still had powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders passed by the Tribunals if the findings of fact
had been arrived at by non-consideration of the relevant and material documents, the consideration of which
could have led to an opposite conclusion. This power of the High Court under the Constitution of India is
valways in addition to the revisional jurisdiction conferred on it.

The Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, dealt with the nature
of power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution and the power of superintendence
conferred by Article 227. It was held that the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution and on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is part of the basic
structure of the Constitution, forming its integral and essential feature, which cannot be tampered with much
less taken away even by constitutional amendment, not to speak of a parliamentary legislation. A recent
Division Bench decision by Delhi High Court (Dalveer Bhandari and H.R. Malhotra, JJ) in Criminal Writ Petition
NO.s.758, 917 and 1295 of 2002 – Govind Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided on April 7, 2003 (reported
as [2003] 6 ILD 468 makes an indepth survey of decided cases including almost all the leading decisions by this
Court and holds – "The power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be whittled down, nullified,
curtailed, abrogated, diluted or taken either by judicial pronouncement or by the legislative enactment or even
by the amendment of the Constitution. The power of judicial review is an inherent part of the basic structure
and it cannot be abrogated without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution." The essence of
constitutional and legal principles, relevant to the issue at hand, has been correctly summed up by the Division
Bench of the High Court and we record our approval of the same.

The principles deducible, well-settled as they are, have been well summed up and stated by a two-judges Bench
of this Court recently in State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and Ors., JT
2003 (4) SC 605, para 28. This Court held :

(i) the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the state Legislature;

(ii) the supervisory jurisdiction is wide and can be used to meet the ends of justice, also to interfere even with
interlocutory order;

(iii) the power must be exercised sparingly, only to move subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of
their authority to see that they obey the law. The power is not available to be exercised to correct mere errors
(whether on the facts or laws) and also cannot be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise".

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts
within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does
not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being
exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned
thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be
entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well
defined exceptions as observed in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal,
2014 (1) SCC 603, as follows: “15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some
exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in
accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental
principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when
an 5 order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid
down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the
High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective
alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action
complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the
field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition
should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.”

Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was
held in Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and others, (2001) 6 SCC 569, that :- “6. The Act has
been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and
the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an
appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by
taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 9 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil
suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the
jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is
an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising
its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should
not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the
respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.”The Supreme Court of
India is the apex court of our country. It has control over all the High Courts functioning in
the states The Supreme Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction, the original jurisdiction, the
advisory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also entertains and deals with the References.
Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for an appeal to the Supreme
Court of India from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
passed whether in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the revisional jurisdiction or in
exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Comity Between the Courts and the Commissions By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution
of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court of India is binding on all courts within the
territory of India and as such all courts in the country are subordinate to the Supreme Court of
India, the latter being the apex court of the country. Thus the Supreme Court exercises its writ
jurisdiction conferred on it under Part III Article 32 of the Constitution and a High Court
exercises its writ jurisdiction by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court
has very wide territorial jurisdiction and it is throughout India while a High Court has the
power to issue writs throughout the territory of the state in relation to which it exercises its
jurisdiction for the enforcement of all the rights conferred by Part III of the Indian
Constitution.

An aggrieved party can approach either the Supreme Court or a High Court seeking
protection against infringement of his fundamental rights. However, the Supreme Court does
not encourage direct approach to it, except for good reasons, in the matters which have been
taken to the High Court and found against without obtaining leave to appeal there from as
was held in M.K. Gopalan v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers revisional jurisdiction on the
National Commission in respect of a consumer dispute pending before or decided by a State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. A High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction
under Articles 226 or 227 respectively of the Indian Constitution. However, the scope of
revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is larger than that is
provided under Articles 226 and 227 respectively of the Indian Constitution. If the National
Commission and a High Court simultaneously exercise their respective revisional
jurisdictions, the National Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission under section 21(b) of
the Consumer Protection Act and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in
respect of the same order of a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in such an
even an anomalous situation is likely to arise.29 For instance, an order of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum confirmed by a State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission is carried by way or revision by one of the opposite parties to the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and while the stay of operation of the order
granted by the National Commission is in force and the other opposite party approaches the
High Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the
High Court allows the writ petition by setting aside the order remands the matter to the
District Forum for fresh disposal of the case and meanwhile one of the opposite parties
prefers appeal against the order of the District Forum to the State Commission and having not
succeeded in the State Commission prefers appeal to the National Commission where
ultimately he succeeds in obtaining stay of the operation of the impugned order. In both the
cases, anomaly is experienced. In this situational context, it is relevant to refer to the decision
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nazeer Ahmad v. Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing
Board30 wherein the High Court held that the writ petition filed invoking the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable
against the order of the District Forum as efficacious alternative remedy is provided under
section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act conferring jurisdiction on the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission.

You might also like