Limits on Jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 | Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel

Recently the Supreme Court of India in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel has explained the revisional jurisdiction of high courts under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. The two Judges bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi has held that the revisional jurisdiction is not to correct every error if the final finding is ultimately found correct. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction High courts cannot re-appreciate evidence as courts of first appeal. The bench further held that power mentioned under Article 227 should be used sparingly and in appropriate cases, like where there is no evidence to support the facts or the finding is found to be so pervasive that no reasonable person would come to such a conclusion.

Brief facts of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel

In the instant case the appellant was in judicial custody in Jaipur and for that very reason he couldn’t appear before Delhi high court in another civil suit filed against him. The joint registrar, Delhi high court had directed closure of defence evidence in the civil suit and transferred the civil suit to the court of Addl. Dist. Judge on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Addl. Dist.. Judge recalled the high court’s order directing closure of defence evidence and the appellant was allowed to give his evidence and then has issued a production warrant. But the jail supritendent Jaipur did not complied and instead had sought clarification from the court that whether the detenu was on bail in that instant civil matter or not. The Addl. Dist. Judge then rejected the request for clarification observing that he should have been produced. The suit was again re-transferred to the High Court in view of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. But vide order dated 10th August 2016 the suit was again directed to be renumbered and was listed before the Addl. Dist. Judge, Tis Hazari. The counsel for the appellant did not appear and the court closed the defence evidence and later heard final arguments and an exparte judgement was passed.

Upon release from central jail; the appellant filed an application before Addl. Dist. Judge, Tis hazari for recalling the order of closure of defence evidence and an application under order IX rule 13 for setting aside exparte decree. The application was allowed. Later the Delhi high court exercising powers under article 227 of the constitution of india has set aside Addl. Dist. Judge’s order allowing the application. The defendant then moved to the apex court where it was finally heard. The apex court explained that the order passed by the high court is contrary to law and cannot sustain for several reasons but most importantly for the deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercisable by the high court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It was held that “The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 has to be exercised sparingly in appropriate cases. Such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.”

The apex court further held that the discretion exercised by the court of Addl. Dist. Judge in granting relief did not suffer from any error on the face of record or a perverse finding. Therefore the reasoned and justified decision of the Addl. Dist.. Judge upon consideration of relevant facts, did not warrant any interference of the high court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Scope of Article 227

The apex court in its earlier judgments has held that under Article 227 the High Courts are vested with the powers of General Superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals and this power of Superintendence is not subject to procedural technicalities or traditional fetters. The powers vested to the high courts under article 227 are limited compared to 226 where the powers are wider. So this power under the 227 should be used only for the purpose of keeping the courts below and the tribunals within the limits of their authority and not for correcting each and every error committed by them.

Interplay between Article 226 and 227

A general practice has been observed where just to avoid the objections writ petitions are filed before high courts under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the constitution of India. However as explained earlier the powers and scope of both the articles are very different. The power to issue writs under 226 is different from the power of superintendence under 227.

The said situation was discussed by the supreme court in the case of Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Rashika Bai where the court has held ‘the fact that the same result can at times be achieved by two different processes does not mean that these two processes are the same. Their source and origin are different and models upon which they are patterned are also different. It was also further elaborated that High courts do not have unlimited powers to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within its jurisdiction’.

While 226 relates to original jurisdiction and 227 relates to revisional jurisdiction, both these articles also operate under different situations and in different areas.

Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr v. Chhabi Nath & Ors has held that ‘the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules and the exercise is discretionary’.

Therefore, the Judicial orders passed by a civil court can be challenged only under Article 227 and cannot be amended by issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226.

The supreme court in Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil has held that order passed by trial court has not resulted in gross and manifest failure  of justice nor has been there any legality or perversity committed by the court and therefore petitioner instead of filing petition under 227 should have filed an application before the trial court itself.  This has also been laid down in the case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular operators association of India and ors. where the supreme court has held that if an alternative remedial mechanism is provisioned under the statute itself, then in that case filing writ petitions as a remedial recourse shall be  discouraged.

Hence, the power under 227 cannot be used to interfere with the orders of the subordinate court in a routine manner or be taken as a right of appeal just to point out errors of law or fact in the orders or decisions of subordinate courts.

Interplay between Article 227 and The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Arbitration and Conciliation act itself was introduced to settle the disputes outside courts and to have as less judicial interference from courts as possible.

The supreme court in the case of SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd v. Tuff Drilling Pvt Ltd has held that the Arbitral tribunal comes under the ambit of Article 227.  However the supreme court has cautioned the high courts regarding exercise of powers of superintendence over the arbitral tribunal.

The Supreme Court has also developed two tests which are to be used by the courts, namely ‘Patently lacking in inherent Jurisdiction Test’, and the ‘Exceptional Rarity Test’.

In this regard the Supreme court has already laid down the law in the case of Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Gas Corp Ltd. & Anr where it has held pending arbitral proceedings invoking 227 by interfering through petition filed under 227 must be restricted to orders that are passed with patent lack of inherent jurisdiction and unfair practice which may lead to denial of justice. And thus, the supreme court has evolved and expounded ‘Patently lacking in inherent Jurisdiction Test’

The apex court has further explained that ‘High Courts should be circumspect in interfering with the orders and should be restricted to the orders passed which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction and a patent lack of jurisdiction is only when perversity is found on the face of it.

While the other test i.e. ‘Exceptional Rarity Test’ was formulated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam. This test explains that the high court shall only allow a petition if the party shows firstly, that it is remedi-less and failure of admission of petition would amount to denial of justice or secondly, that the other party has shown clear bad faith.

Conclusion

The judgments discussed above have developed jurisprudence where courts have to restrain themselves in allowing petitions filed under Article 227.

It was explained how courts must stop acting as appellate courts even when exercising power of supervision or else there would be no end to litigation. The powers of revision under Article 227 are subject to such restrictions as laid down in the law and those which time and again have been explained by the supreme court through its judgments.

And with regard to the arbitration tribunal; it must be free and must be respected. The courts should have faith in the tribunals and have a pro-arbitration approach.

Author: Naman is a Practising Advocate at Patna High Court and is Pursuing Post Graduate Diploma in Intellectual Property Rights from Gujarat National Law University. The views are personal only.

Related Posts

• Joseph Shine v Union of India
• Independence of Judiciary in India
• Is it Legal to Hold Rs 2000 Notes?
• Is Live-In Relationship Legal in India?
• Allowance Due to a Wife from Her Husband on Separation in India