2003 (8) TMI 591 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impact of the amendment in Section 115 of the CPC on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
2. Scope and application of writ of certiorari under Article 226.
3. Scope and application of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
4. Distinction between certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
5. Maintainability of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 against interlocutory orders of subordinate courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Impact of the Amendment in Section 115 of the CPC on the Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999, effective from 01.07.2002, curtailed the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. However, this amendment does not affect the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court retains its power to issue writs of certiorari and to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. This power remains untrammeled by the amendment, subject to judicial self-discipline and established practice.

2. Scope and Application of Writ of Certiorari under Article 226:
Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal to review the record of proceedings for errors of jurisdiction. It is used to correct gross errors of jurisdiction, such as when a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in flagrant disregard of the law or principles of natural justice. The High Court, in exercising certiorari jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate court and does not re-evaluate evidence or correct mere errors of law or fact unless they are manifest and apparent on the face of the record.

3. Scope and Application of Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227:
Article 227 confers on the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. This power is both administrative and judicial and can be invoked suo motu or at the instance of an aggrieved party. The supervisory jurisdiction is broader than certiorari and is used to ensure that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and follow the law. It can be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors and to prevent grave injustice or failure of justice.

4. Distinction between Certiorari Jurisdiction under Article 226 and Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227:
The primary distinction lies in the nature of the jurisdiction. Certiorari under Article 226 is an exercise of the High Court's original jurisdiction, while supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original but supervisory. Certiorari is used to quash proceedings with no further directions, whereas supervisory jurisdiction allows the High Court to guide the subordinate court on how to proceed further. Supervisory jurisdiction can also be exercised suo motu, unlike certiorari, which requires a petition from an aggrieved party.

5. Maintainability of Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 against Interlocutory Orders of Subordinate Courts:
Interlocutory orders, which are not subject to revision under the amended Section 115 of the CPC, can still be challenged under Articles 226 and 227. The writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, while supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised to ensure that subordinate courts remain within their jurisdiction. However, both jurisdictions are not available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless they are manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and have caused grave injustice or failure of justice.

Conclusion:
The High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 remains unaffected by the amendment in Section 115 of the CPC. The High Court can issue writs of certiorari to correct jurisdictional errors and exercise supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and follow the law. Both jurisdictions are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or failure of justice. The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order refusing to entertain the petition is set aside, with the petition to be dealt with by an appropriate Bench.