2015 (7) TMI 376 - SC - Indian Laws

Judicial orders of civil courts not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Appellate or revisional powers under Article 227 applicable.

RADHEY SHYAM & ANR & JAGDISH PRASAD Versus CHHABI NATH & ORS & IQBAL KAUR & ORS

The court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction under ... Whether an order of civil court was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - correctness of the law laid down by this Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [2003 (8) TMI 527 - SUPREME COURT] - Held that:- (i) Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction from jurisdiction under Article 226. - Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled Issues Involved:1. Whether judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The distinction between jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Judicial Orders of Civil Courts and Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226:The primary issue was whether judicial orders of civil courts can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution through a writ of certiorari. The judgment examined the correctness of the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, which held that such orders could be challenged under Article 226. The court referred to the nine-judge bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra, which concluded that 'Certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior courts of civil jurisdiction.' The court noted that the decision in Surya Dev Rai did not correctly appreciate the ratio in Mirajkar and that changes in English law could not dilute the binding nature of the ratio in Mirajkar. The court emphasized that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227 are the appropriate remedies. The court concluded that the view in Surya Dev Rai, which allowed writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against judicial orders of civil courts, was incorrect and contrary to established legal principles.2. Distinction between Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227:The judgment clarified the essential distinctions between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Article 226 pertains to the original jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes, while Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that the power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases to ensure that tribunals and courts act within their authority. The court highlighted that the distinction between the two jurisdictions was well established and that the observation in Surya Dev Rai, which suggested that the distinction had been obliterated, was incorrect. The court reiterated that judicial orders of civil courts could be challenged under Article 227 but not under Article 226. The court also addressed submissions 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 were limited to specific propositions and did not address the issue of maintainability of a petition under Article 226.Conclusion:The court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226. The contrary view in Surya Dev Rai was overruled. The matters were directed to be listed before the appropriate bench for further orders.