Article 226: High Court's Writ Jurisdiction

Every High Court shall have power to issue directions, orders or writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.

Broader Than Article 32

Article 226 grants wider powers to High Courts compared to Supreme Court under Article 32:

• Wider Scope: Can issue writs for fundamental rights AND any other legal rights
• Territorial Jurisdiction: Can issue writs within their territorial jurisdiction
• Against Any Authority: Government and non-government bodies
• Discretionary Power: High Court can refuse to exercise jurisdiction

Key Differences from Article 32

Aspect	Article 32	Article 226
Fundamental Right	Yes	No (Constitutional Power)
Scope	Only fundamental rights	Fundamental + other legal rights
Jurisdiction	Pan-India	Within state
Discretion	Mandatory	Discretionary
Against Whom	State only	State + private bodies

Types of Writs Under Article 226

High Courts can issue all five writs:

1. Habeas Corpus
2. Mandamus
3. Prohibition
4. Certiorari
5. Quo Warranto

When to Approach High Court vs Supreme Court

Prefer High Court when:

• Matter has territorial connection with the state
• Urgency requires immediate relief
• Violation of non-fundamental legal rights
• Issue involves local laws or authorities
• Cost and accessibility considerations

Prefer Supreme Court when:

• Matter of national importance
• Central government action is challenged
• Conflicting High Court decisions
• Constitutional interpretation required

Article 226 and Private Rights

Unlike Article 32, Article 226 can be invoked for:

• Statutory rights
• Common law rights
• Contractual rights (in certain cases)
• Property rights
• Service law matters

Territorial Jurisdiction

A High Court can issue writs if:

• Cause of action arises wholly or partly within its jurisdiction
• Respondent resides or has office within jurisdiction
• Subject matter is located within jurisdiction

Limitations and Exceptions

High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction when:

• Alternative remedy is available and adequate
• Disputed questions of fact need to be decided
• Petitioner has approached with unclean hands
• There is inordinate delay (laches)
• Matter falls under excluded jurisdiction

Alternative Remedy

Availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar but High Courts generally:

• Prefer petitioners to exhaust alternative remedies first
• May still entertain if remedy is illusory or ineffective
• Will intervene if fundamental rights are violated
• May exercise in cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error

Article 226(3): Saving Clause

High Court can issue writs to any person or authority within its jurisdiction even if the seat of government or authority is located outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Landmark Cases

• Dwarkanath v. ITO (1965): Alternative remedy is not absolute bar
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Scope of Article 226
• T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954): Writs can be issued against private bodies performing public duties
• State of UP v. Johri Mal (1963): Discretionary power of High Courts

Practical Applications

• Service matters and government employment
• Admission to educational institutions
• Taxation disputes
• Land acquisition challenges
• Environmental protection
• Consumer rights
• Electoral disputes