Conflicts of Supreme Court Decisions in 226/227

Dear Mr. Assumi

I would like to bring it your notice that powers under Article 226 and 227 are quite different.  Article 226 confers powers on High courts to deal cases on writs.  Whereas Article 227 confers power to control the matters pending with courts functioning below it.  Artcile 227 does not deal with writs. 

Dear Krishna, thank you for the respond. Do you mean that 227 is confined only to pre decision and not post decision? Any way thank you, but lets wait for more feed back from the members on this issues.

Dear Sir,

i agree with u to some extent as the first case clealry bars any HC to entertain a writ u/Art 226 or any petition u/art 227 to correct error of law or appreciate evidence/ facts. whereas the second case has laid dwn rules for 226 and 227 which has incorporated some of the earlier SC rulings over the same subject.

But again in the second judgment, the Sc while laying dwn rules, has once again reiterated the guidelines what was held by the three bench judges includin CJI in that earlier case.

i am reproducing the said guidelines :

8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

also, the court expanded the horizon of both the articles, based on earlier judgments, defining and interpreting when the articles can be invoked to remove error of law or grave injustice

"(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure

of justice has occasioned thereby.

(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent"

Dear Sir,

i agree with u to some extent as the first case clealry bars any HC to entertain a writ u/Art 226 or any petition u/art 227 to correct error of law or appreciate evidence/ facts. whereas the second case has laid dwn rules for 226 and 227 which has incorporated some of the earlier SC rulings over the same subject.

But again in the second judgment, the Sc while laying dwn rules, has once again reiterated the guidelines what was held by the three bench judges includin CJI in that earlier case.

i am reproducing the said guidelines :

8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

also, the court expanded the horizon of both the articles, based on earlier judgments, defining and interpreting when the articles can be invoked to remove error of law or grave injustice

"(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure

of justice has occasioned thereby.

(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent"

Dear Manish, thank you for the responds. As correctly pointed by you, the first case relates to alternative remedy and that is right as there was no error apparent on the face of the records. The distinction between mere error of law and facts are fine, but when there is utter disregard to the provisions of law or in utter disregard to the provisions of law the court should not hesitiate to intervene as such error may earn immunity as stated in the second case. as way back in 1932 in the case of Manmatha vs Emperor (1932-1933) 37 CWN 201: Chief justice Renkin, speaking for the division bench held: power of superintendence is apower to keep subordinate courts within their bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and they do it in a legal manner. That case relates to conviction based on no legal reason and unsustainable in law and right of appeal was allowed to lapse. Now, when a subordinate court acted in utter disregard to law also called in India as an error apparent on the face of records as distinguished from mere error of law or facts, should we stick to traditional discipline of alternative remedy or leave it to the discreation of the Court to invoke its discreation rather than making it as right for the aggrieved party? What I would like to point out is that: in such matter it should be a right for the aggrieved party to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction or writs power of the court to remove the error before it earn immunity from correction. In such case appeal might have lapsed or Revision might not have preferred in time but such discipline should not stand in the way of the High Courts to entertain supervisory jurisdiction or the writs power of the court to correct the indiscipline in law.