Civil court orders are not challengeable by certiorari under Article 226; Article 227 remains a distinct supervisory remedy.

Judicial orders of civil courts exercising plenary jurisdiction are not ordinarily amenable to writ certiorari under Article 226; they are instead corrected through appeal, revision, or supervisory remedies. The Court distinguished civil court orders from those of tribunals and authorities, and rejected the contrary view as inconsistent with binding larger Bench authority. It also held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutionally distinct from Article 226: Article 227 is a separate supervisory power to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within jurisdiction, and is not a substitute for certiorari under Article 226.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Earlier decisions were examined on the scope of certiorari and the distinction between judicial orders of civil courts and orders of tribunals or authorities. The reasoning in prior Constitution Bench decisions was accepted that civil courts of plenary jurisdiction stand on a different footing and that such orders are ordinarily corrected by appeal, revision, or supervisory jurisdiction, not by certiorari under Article 226. The contrary view that civil court orders could be corrected under Article 226 was found inconsistent with the binding ratio in the earlier larger Bench authority.

Conclusion: Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The supervisory power under Article 227 was treated as constitutionally distinct from the original writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Article 227 is meant to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and is not a substitute for certiorari under Article 226. The prior view suggesting an overlap or near obliteration of the distinction was disapproved.

Conclusion: Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that civil court orders cannot be challenged through certiorari under Article 226, while supervisory control under Article 227 remains available as a separate jurisdictional remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Orders of civil courts exercising plenary judicial jurisdiction are not subject to writ certiorari under Article 226, and the High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 remains a separate and distinct constitutional jurisdiction.

---