The High Courts have original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain matters which concern the violation of human rights or abuse of powers by the state. This Article empowers the High courts to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. The writs are an important tool with which the High Courts compel the state authorities to perform a specific act or to refrain from doing of an unlawful act.
The writ jurisdiction is not only vast but also extraordinary. Since it is of original nature, it can be exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction, but not to upset pure findings of the fact, which is within the domain of an appellate court only. Therefore it cannot be used as a Revision or Appeal court as the rejection of the order by the subordinate court does not give rise to the question of violation of fundamental right when the alternate remedy of appealing against the lower court’s decision is available. The Supreme Court has remarked that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by a competent administrative authority, nor reappreciate evidence for itself to correct the error of fact, that does not go to the root of jurisdiction.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in Roshina T v/s Abdul Azeez K.T. &Orsthat the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is special and extraordinary; it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant.The High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. In the aforementioned case, the parties were private persons and the dispute was related to property rights. Even then the High Court entertained the dispute under Article 226 jurisdiction. To this, the Supreme Court remarked that the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a Civil Court, which was not permissible.
Difference between jurisdiction under articles 32 and 226. Under Article 226, the High Courts are authorised to issue directions, orders, or writs to any person or authority, including any government to enforce fundamental rights and ‘for any other purpose’. On the other hand, the Supreme Court under Article 32 can be approached only and only for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. This clearly show that Article 226 is wider in scope than Article 32. But it is noteworthy that however wide the Article 226 jurisdiction may be, it can only be attracted in cases where there is a pre-existing right.The Supreme Court has held that the writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or establish a legal right but to enforce one that stood already established.
The text of Article 226 read with Article 12 makes it clear that writs and directions under Article 226 can be issued only against authorities and persons having ‘authority of the State’. however, this does not mean that the writ jurisdiction isnot merely confined to governmental institutions and statutory public bodies. The judicial interpretation of the term ‘Other Authorities’ has led to inclusion of even those institutions which are not purely statutory. The emphasis has now shifted from the form of the body to the functions performed by the body.Thus, as summarised by the Supreme Court, ‘A writ under Article 226 can lie against a “person” if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or statutory duty.’