Supreme Court on Article 226: Balancing Judicial Review with Statutory Remedies
GS2
The Supreme Court has reiterated that High Courts should exercise self-restraint and generally refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available. This ruling emphasizes the importance of specialized administrative tribunals and prevents the bypassing of established legal hierarchies.
In a significant reaffirmation of administrative law principles, the Supreme Court of India has stated that High Courts should not bypass the statutory machinery provided by the legislature. While the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is a part of the 'basic structure' and is wider in scope than Article 32, the Court emphasized that it is a discretionary power that must be exercised with self-imposed restrictions.
The core of the judgment rests on the principle of 'alternative remedy.' The Court observed that when a specific statute provides a comprehensive mechanism for redressal—such as an appellate tribunal or a specialized commission—the High Court should not permit a litigant to skip these stages by filing a writ petition. This is particularly relevant in matters involving complex technical facts or specialized fields like taxation, environment, or service law, where administrative tribunals possess the requisite expertise.
Continue reading — free with login
JeetoBharat publishes daily UPSC current affairs mapped to the Mains syllabus. Log in to read full articles.
Log in to read full articleNo credit card required. Free registered users get unlimited access.
This article was curated using AI. While we strive for accuracy, please verify critical facts from official sources.