A Comprehensive Analysis Of The Difference Between Writ Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court And High Courts In India

Coverage of this Article

1. Introduction
- The Indian judiciary is a three-tiered system, comprising the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by various High Courts in each state, and subordinate courts at the district level.

2. Overview of Writ Jurisdiction
- Before delving into the distinctions between the Supreme Court and High Courts' writ jurisdiction, it is essential to understand the concept of writs.

3. Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

4. Scope of Judicial Review
- The scope of judicial review under the writ jurisdiction is an essential aspect that distinguishes the two courts' roles in upholding the rule of law.

5. Res Judicata
- Another critical distinction lies in the principle of res judicata, which bars the same matter from being re-litigated.

6. Special Leave Petition (SLP)
- A Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a mechanism through which parties can appeal to the Supreme Court against the orders of High Courts or tribunals.

7. Conclusion
- In conclusion, the writ jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and High Courts plays a vital role in ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law in India.

Key takeaway

• Constitutional Remedies
• Jurisdiction of High Courts 
• Jurisdiction of Supreme Court 
• Limited Scope of Supreme Court's Writ Jurisdiction 

Introduction

The Indian judiciary is a three-tiered system, comprising the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by various High Courts in each state, and subordinate courts at the district level. One of the most crucial powers vested in both the Supreme Court and the High Courts is their writ jurisdiction. This legal article aims to explore and elucidate the fundamental differences between the writ jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India.

Writ jurisdiction is a potent tool that allows the judiciary to safeguard fundamental rights and provide justice to citizens. The Constitution of India, under Articles 32 and 226, confers the power of writ jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. The exercise of this jurisdiction differs between the two courts, reflecting their unique roles within the Indian legal framework.

Overview of Writ Jurisdiction:

Before delving into the distinctions between the Supreme Court and High Courts' writ jurisdiction, it is essential to understand the concept of writs. Writs are legal orders issued by courts to enforce fundamental rights or control administrative actions. There are five types of writs available in India: habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto. Each writ serves a specific purpose, and its invocation depends on the nature of the case.

Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This jurisdiction is unique to the Supreme Court and is known as "original jurisdiction." The following aspects differentiate the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction from that of the High Courts:

• Exclusive Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction is exclusive and not concurrent. This means that only the Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Individuals seeking remedies for fundamental rights violations must approach the Supreme Court directly, as there is no alternative forum for such cases.
• Applicability: The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction extends not only to the enforcement of fundamental rights but also to issues involving conflicts between fundamental rights and the resolution of disputes between the Centre and States or between different States.
• Applicability against Private Individuals: While the High Courts can issue writs against both state and private entities, the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights against the State and its instrumentalities. Private individuals or entities cannot be brought under the purview of the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction unless they are acting as agents or instrumentalities of the State.

Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts:

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs within their respective territories. The High Courts' writ jurisdiction is "supervisory" in nature and complements the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction. The following points elucidate the differences in the writ jurisdiction of High Courts:

• Territorial Jurisdiction: Each High Court exercises its writ jurisdiction within the territorial limits of the state to which it pertains. The High Court can issue writs against any authority, whether it is the State, Central Government, or private entities, within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Concurrent Jurisdiction: Unlike the Supreme Court, the High Courts' writ jurisdiction is not exclusive. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but the choice of forum lies with the petitioner. This provides individuals with the flexibility to approach the High Court directly when seeking remedies for fundamental rights violations.
• Wider Range of Issues: While the primary function of the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction is the enforcement of fundamental rights, the High Courts' writ jurisdiction is broader. High Courts can issue writs not only for the protection of fundamental rights but also to ensure that administrative actions are within the bounds of law and to correct errors of inferior courts and tribunals.

Scope of Judicial Review:

The scope of judicial review under the writ jurisdiction is an essential aspect that distinguishes the two courts' roles in upholding the rule of law. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review is broader as it can examine the constitutional validity of laws and administrative actions. On the other hand, High Courts' judicial review is relatively limited to examining administrative actions for errors of jurisdiction, bias, or violation of procedural laws.

Res Judicata:

Another critical distinction lies in the principle of res judicata, which bars the same matter from being re-litigated. Decisions made by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 are binding on all courts in India. In contrast, the decisions of High Courts under Article 226 are binding only within their respective territories, making it possible for different High Courts to render different decisions on the same issue.

Special Leave Petition (SLP):

A Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a mechanism through which parties can appeal to the Supreme Court against the orders of High Courts or tribunals. Under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order. This power is discretionary and allows the Supreme Court to maintain uniformity in the interpretation and application of laws.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the writ jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and High Courts plays a vital role in ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law in India. While the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction is exclusive, limited to matters concerning fundamental rights and has a wider scope of judicial review, the High Courts' writ jurisdiction is concurrent, operates within territorial boundaries, and has a broader scope of issues it can address. These distinctions ensure an effective system of checks and balances and contribute to the strength and integrity of India's judiciary.