Article 226

Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers upon the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and for any other purpose. This provision is one of the most significant judicial safeguards in the Indian constitutional framework, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and maintaining the rule of law across the country.

Constitutional Context and Purpose

Article 226 is situated in Part V, Chapter V of the Constitution, which deals with the High Courts in the States. It provides a constitutional remedy for individuals whose rights are infringed by state action or by any authority under its jurisdiction. Unlike Article 32, which vests similar powers in the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights only, Article 226 extends the jurisdiction of High Courts to both fundamental and other legal rights.
The inclusion of this provision reflects the framers’ vision of creating a decentralised judicial structure, ensuring that justice and constitutional remedies remain accessible to citizens at the regional level.

Scope and Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226

Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs to any person or authority, including the government, within its territorial jurisdiction. The High Court can exercise this power not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also “for any other purpose,” meaning it can intervene in cases of violation of statutory or common law rights as well.
The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 extends to:

• Authorities located within the state, and
• Authorities outside the state, if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within the High Court’s jurisdiction.

This broad jurisdiction allows High Courts to play a pivotal role in ensuring administrative accountability and judicial oversight.

Types of Writs Issued under Article 226

High Courts in India are empowered to issue five traditional writs inherited from English common law. Each serves a distinct purpose in the protection of rights and in controlling administrative and quasi-judicial actions:

• Habeas Corpus: Literally meaning “to have the body,” this writ is issued to secure the release of a person unlawfully detained by the state or any authority. It serves as a safeguard of personal liberty.
• Mandamus: Meaning “we command,” this writ directs a public authority or government official to perform a duty imposed upon them by law. It cannot be issued against private individuals or discretionary functions.
• Prohibition: This writ restrains inferior courts or tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction or acting contrary to law. It is preventive in nature.
• Certiorari: Issued to quash the orders of a subordinate court or tribunal when they act without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice. It is corrective in nature.
• Quo Warranto: Literally meaning “by what authority,” this writ is used to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to a public office, ensuring that no one occupies a position without legal authority.

These writs collectively form the bedrock of judicial review in India, empowering High Courts to protect citizens from arbitrary administrative actions.

Relationship with Article 32

While Article 32 of the Constitution gives individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 226 provides a wider remedial scope. The key distinctions between the two are:

• Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself, whereas Article 226 is a constitutional power of the High Courts.
• The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while High Courts under Article 226 can issue writs for both fundamental and legal rights.
• Article 226, being discretionary, allows High Courts to decide whether or not to entertain a petition based on the facts of each case.

This dual remedy structure ensures that citizens have multiple avenues to seek justice — both at the national and regional levels.

Landmark Judicial Pronouncements

The judiciary has elaborated the scope and importance of Article 226 in several landmark judgments:

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and emphasised that High Courts under Article 226 have the authority to protect individuals from arbitrary state action.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): The case reinforced the High Court’s power to issue writs for ensuring transparency and upholding the rule of law.
• Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989): The Court discussed the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, reaffirming that personal liberty is paramount and can be protected through Article 226.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed even by constitutional amendment.

These rulings collectively underline that the High Courts are constitutional guardians of liberty, vested with wide powers to ensure justice and uphold constitutional values.

Procedure for Filing a Writ Petition

Any person aggrieved by an act of the state or a public authority may file a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 226. The following principles govern the process:

1. The petitioner must demonstrate a violation of a legal or fundamental right.
2. The authority against whom relief is sought must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. The petition must be supported by evidence or documents establishing the illegality of the act.
4. The High Court exercises discretionary powers in granting relief and may decline to interfere if an alternative legal remedy is available.

This procedural flexibility allows High Courts to adapt their approach depending on the urgency and gravity of each case.

Limitations on the Exercise of Power

Although Article 226 grants broad powers, certain constitutional and judicial limitations apply:

• High Courts cannot issue writs against the President of India or Governors of States for actions performed in the exercise of their official duties.
• The jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, meaning the court may refuse to intervene if an effective alternative remedy exists.
• High Courts refrain from issuing writs in cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Despite these constraints, the power remains expansive and essential for maintaining constitutional governance.

Role in Judicial Activism and Governance

Article 226 has played a transformative role in promoting judicial activism in India. High Courts have increasingly used their writ jurisdiction to protect public interest, ensure governmental accountability, and address administrative inefficiency.
Through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and suo motu actions, High Courts have expanded access to justice and addressed systemic issues such as environmental degradation, corruption, and human rights violations.
This activism, grounded in Article 226, has significantly strengthened democratic governance by ensuring that public authorities act within the boundaries of law.

Constitutional Significance

Article 226 forms the cornerstone of India’s system of constitutional remedies, giving High Courts the authority to act as protectors of rights and the rule of law. It ensures that:

• The executive remains accountable to judicial scrutiny.
• Citizens’ rights are safeguarded at the state level.
• The balance of power among the three branches of government is maintained.