Principles For Issuing Writ Of Certiorari Under Article 226 : Supreme Court Summarises

In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala summarised the cardinal principles governing the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly concerning the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

The judgment in this case Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das was written by Justice Pardiwala.

1. High Court Not Appellate Tribunal under Article 226

The first principle underscores that when a High Court issues a writ of certiorari under Article 226, it does not morph into an Appellate Tribunal. Unlike appellate bodies, the High Court abstains from reevaluating the evidence presented before the lower tribunal. 

"It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal", the judgment stated. 

"The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking", the judgment added,

2. Substantial Justice through exercise of discretion

The second cardinal principle emphasizes 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 that substantial justice prevails among the parties involved. Article 226 offers a unique remedy rooted in addressing legal injury, guided by discretion. This allows the High Court to weigh public interest and equity while rendering decisions. This principle underscores the innate flexibility in this jurisdiction, enabling the High Court to consider not only legal aspects but also practical and equitable considerations.

"While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not", the Court observed.

Enhancing Clarity: Insights from Justice B.K. Mukherjee

The judgment noted that the essential features of a writ of certiorari, including a brief history, have been very exhaustively explained by Justice B.K. Mukherjea, J. in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 440

Justice B.K. Mukherjea observed “In granting a writ of ‘certiorari’, the superior court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal”

Solidifying Principles in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque

The case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque established 3 fundamental propositions governing this writ.

“(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it.

(2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard or violates the principles of natural justice.

(3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.”

The Supreme Court further elaborated that a court with jurisdiction has the power to pronounce both accurate and erroneous judgments within its subject matter jurisdiction. This policy prevents higher courts from supplanting their own findings through a writ of certiorari, thereby upholding the legislation's intent.

Writ doesn’t extend to correcting errors of fact: Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477

Further shaping the contours of this legal terrain, this case reaffirmed the writ's role in correcting errors of law on the face of the record. However, it clarified that the writ does not extend to errors of fact. Inferior court findings of fact are not open to reexamination by higher courts, even if they seem incorrect. Exceptions arise when an impugned finding has no evidence supporting it or results from the incorrect admission or refusal of evidence. In such instances, the writ can be sought. Nevertheless, a finding of fact cannot be challenged due to insufficient or inadequate evidence before the tribunal.

Exercising Restraint: Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chandra Rai 2003 (6) SCC 675

The Court referred to this case which underscored the prudence behind exercising certiorari jurisdiction. It held that the availability of certiorari jurisdiction doesn't mandate its automatic exercise. The High Court can refrain from issuing the writ if it finds no miscarriage of justice.

Procedural facet of certiorari jurisdiction: Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque

Delving into the procedural facet of certiorari jurisdiction, the judgment navigates through the typical course followed by the High Court. It often directs the inferior court or tribunal to furnish its records or proceedings for meticulous scrutiny. This step facilitates the High Court's assessment of any errors that may have contributed to a miscarriage of justice, a doctrine eloquently outlined by the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and Others (AIR 1955 SC 233).

Redefining the landscape of “Jurisdictional Error”

The Supreme Court then delved into the intricacies of jurisdictional errors clarifying that errors of jurisdiction arise due to the nature of the subject matter or the absence of crucial preliminary or jurisdictional facts.

Further enriching this discourse, the Supreme Court referred to the elucidation by Lord Reid in The Anisminic case(1969) 2 AC 147 which unveiled a comprehensive framework delineating scenarios where a tribunal's decision can be invalidated due to a 'jurisdictional error'. This includes decisions made in bad faith, beyond its power, disregarding natural justice, misunderstanding statutory provisions, and deciding matters outside its remit.

Threshold for Error Apparent on Record

The court clarified that a mere error of law is inadequate to trigger this extraordinary remedy.

The court observed “It must be one which is manifest or patent on the face of the record. Mere formal or technical errors, even of law, are not sufficient, so as to attract a writ of certiorari.”

This critical principle was demonstrated in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (AIR 1960 SC 137), wherein the court firmly underscored that an error of law must be self-evident or manifest to be considered as an error meriting intervention through a writ of certiorari.

While discussing the evaluation of errors for certiorari jurisdiction, the Supreme Court rejected the notion of employing an inflexible formula. It opined “in our opinion, such a test should not be applied in a straitjacket formula and may fail because what might be considered by one Judge as an error self-evident, might not be considered so by another Judge.”

Preserving the Finality of Findings

Addressing the significance of preserving the finality of findings made by fact-finding authorities, the Supreme Court highlighted the Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union case which reiterated the importance of upholding these findings, unless they stem from irrelevant materials or lack a credible basis. Even in the presence of plausible alternative viewpoints, the court cautioned against disturbing these findings without compelling grounds.

The Prerogative Nature of Certiorari

The Court reiterated the high prerogative status of a writ of certiorari, reserving it for matters involving judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It held “a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course”

While the scope of the writ is comprehensive in correcting errors of jurisdiction and instances of illegality, the court underlined its limitations. The writ doesn't extend to challenging decisions that are simply deemed wrong. Emphasizing its supervisory role rather than an appellate one, the court clarified that it refrains from intervening based on factual errors or merits, maintaining the distinction between certiorari and appeals.

The Supreme Court reiterated the strict criteria under which a writ of certiorari can be granted, highlighting that it will not be issued for incorrect decisions based on facts or merits, as established in King v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. (1922) 2 AC 128 (PC)

Concept of Error Apparent on Face of Record

Delving into the concept of an 'error apparent on the face of the record', the Supreme Court referred to the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale.

It observed that “An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.”

The Supreme Court's commitment to delineating the boundaries of issuing a writ of certiorari was again emphasized in the case of Ebrahim Aboobakar and Hawabai Aboobakar v. The Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi. Here, the court reiterated that issues of jurisdiction could arise from the very nature of the subject matter under consideration. If an inferior court lacks the authority to delve into a specific inquiry or essential prerequisites for its jurisdiction are absent, a jurisdictional error might come into play.

Certiorari in Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. IX

An essential legal principle that encapsulates the writ of certiorari's significance has been succinctly outlined in Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. IX. The Apex court referred to it which asserts that when proceedings before a lower court are regular and magistrates possess proper jurisdiction, superior courts abstain from granting the writ of certiorari solely on the grounds of misapprehension of a legal point. Even if the lower court misunderstands a statute, admits unlawful evidence, disregards admissible evidence, or commits errors in evaluating evidence, the writ of certiorari will not be entertained, as long as the lower court's jurisdiction remains intact.

Reflecting on the case of 'Rai Brij Raj Krishna v. Messrs S.K. Shaw and Brothers' (1951) AIR 1951 SC 115, Fazl Ali, J. had emphasized in his judgment that an error of law should not be misconstrued as an error of jurisdiction.

Drawing from the King's Bench case 'R. v. Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal' (1950) 1 All England Reporter 946, the Supreme Court underscored that when tribunals adhere to statutory procedures and regulations, challenging their determination becomes unwarranted. In such instances, the existence of multiple plausible conclusions does not render the tribunal's decision incorrect, as astutely observed by Lord Goddard, CJ.

The distinction between the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the correctness of its decision

The distinction between a tribunal's jurisdiction and the correctness of its decision was brought to the forefront by the Court. In the case of G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334, the court reiterated that Article 226 empowers the High Court to employ writs in cases where tribunals exceed their jurisdiction, act unlawfully, or deviate from principles of natural justice, resulting in evident injustice. However, this power does not extend to comprehensively reviewing and altering decisions.

Case title: Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment