Supreme Court Summarizes Key Principles for Granting a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226
In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, clarified the fundamental principles governing the application of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, specifically concerning the issuance of a writ of certiorari in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, authored by Justice Pardiwala.
1. High Court's Limited Role under Article 226: The first principle emphasizes that when a High Court issues a writ of certiorari under Article 226, it does not transform into an Appellate Tribunal. Unlike appellate bodies, the High Court does not reevaluate the evidence presented before the lower tribunal. It only annuls orders it deems jurisdictionally flawed or patently erroneous without substituting its own judgment.
2. Discretionary Nature of Article 226: The second cardinal principle highlights the discretionary nature of Article 226's extraordinary jurisdiction. Even if the High Court identifies an action or order as illegal and invalid, it can choose not to overturn it to ensure substantial justice prevails among the parties. Article 226 allows the High Court to consider not only legal aspects but also practical and equitable considerations when rendering decisions.
3. Preservation of Finality of Findings: The Court underscored the importance of preserving the finality of findings made by fact-finding authorities, unless those findings lack a credible basis or stem from irrelevant materials.
4. Certiorari and Jurisdictional Error: The Supreme Court clarified that a writ of certiorari can be granted only for jurisdictional errors that are manifest or patent on the face of the record, not for mere formal or technical errors of law. The Court emphasized that this writ is not a tool to challenge factual errors or the merits of a decision.
5. Procedural Facet of Certiorari Jurisdiction: The judgment explained the procedural aspect of certiorari jurisdiction, wherein the High Court typically scrutinizes the records or proceedings of the inferior court or tribunal to identify errors contributing to a miscarriage of justice.
6. The Prerogative Nature of Certiorari: The Court reaffirmed that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued as a matter of course. Parties must establish a definite case for its issuance.
7. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The Court emphasized that an error apparent on the face of the record should be self-evident and not require lengthy reasoning or multiple opinions to establish.
8. Distinction Between Jurisdiction and Correctness: The judgment clarified the distinction between challenging a tribunal's jurisdiction and reviewing the correctness of its decision. Article 226 empowers the High Court to intervene when tribunals exceed their jurisdiction or act unlawfully but not to comprehensively review and alter their decisions.
This landmark case solidifies the principles governing the issuance of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, ensuring that this extraordinary remedy is used judiciously and in line with its intended purpose.