Scope of Article 226

Article 226 is applicable when a legal right is violated in addition to fundamental rights, giving it a more expansive application. Following are some of the cases:

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs the Union of India (1984)

In the 1984 case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India, it was decided that Article 226 was far more expansive than Article 32, granting High Courts the authority to issue orders, directions, and writs for the enforcement of both fundamental rights and legal rights that are enumerated in statutes and are equally important to the disadvantaged.

Veerappa Pillai vs Raman and Raman Limited (1952)

The case of Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Limited (1952) established that the writs mentioned in Article 226 were actually meant to allow the High Court to grant them in situations where officers or subordinate bodies act outside of their jurisdiction, beyond their jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise their jurisdiction. Also, the case may involve an obvious error on the face of the record, and the act, omission, error, or excess has caused injustice.

Chandigarh Administration vs Manpreet Singh (1991)

The decision in Chandigarh Administration v. Manpreet Singh (1991) stated that, when operating under Article 226, the High Court does not sit and/or serve as an appellate authority over the orders/actions of the subordinate authorities. It only has supervisory authority. Maintaining the government and several other agencies and courts within their designated jurisdictions is one of the main objectives of the jurisdiction. The High Court has to make sure that it stays within the clearly stated limits of its own jurisdiction when carrying out its duties.

Burmah Construction Co. vs the State of Orissa (1961)

In Burmah Construction Co. vs the State of Orissa (1961), it was decided that the aggrieved party should pursue the matter in a civil suit filed for that purpose and that the High Court generally does not entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of tort or breach of contract to pay an amount due to the claimant. However, an order for payment of money may be made in a petition under Article 226 against the state or an officer of the state in order to carry out a statutory duty.

Jagdish Prasad Shastri vs the State of Uttar Pradesh (1970)

The case of Jagdish Prasad Shastri v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (1970) defined that a High Court may decline to address factual issues raised in a writ petition that it considers unsuitable for resolution in a petition for a high prerogative writ, instead sending the party seeking relief back to their customary legal proceedings. It is without a doubt illegal that the High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that there were contested factual issues.

Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue writs to carry out the implementation of Fundamental Rights. Articles 226 along with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provide all Indian citizens the right to constitutional remedies, which include equal protection under the law and equality before the law. The high court may issue writs against different organizations under Article 226. A popular approach to use this power is to file a Writ Petition with the Indian High Courts and Supreme Court. In this article, we will look into the basics of the right to constitutional remedies, and types of writ petition, and discuss some of the most important cases in its history.