ARTICLE 226

Introduction
The exercise of Article 226 writ jurisdiction by the Indian High Courts is subject to specific
exceptions in the context of alternate statutory remedies. While the High Courts are given broad
authority to issue writs for the enforcement of basic rights and for any other purpose by Article
226 of the Indian Constitution, these powers are not unrestricted and are subject to some
restrictions. The availability of an alternative legislative remedy is one of these restrictions.

According to the principle of alternative remedy exhaustion, a litigant must exhaust all available
remedies under the applicable statute before turning to Article 226. This rule is founded on the
premise that the High Court should not hear a writ petition if an appropriate alternative remedy is
available. This makes sure that the hierarchy of adjudication is observed and that the complaint
can be addressed by specialised tribunals or bodies established in accordance with particular
regulations.

Exceptions

1. When the alternative remedy is not equally efficacious: The High Court may utilise
its writ power under Article 226 if the alternative statutory remedy is not equally
effective, sufficient, or appropriate for resolving the complaint. This exception enables
the High Court to step in when the use of the alternative remedy would cause unfairness
or excessive delay.

Case Laws:
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261: In this landmark
case, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which sought to provide an alternative
remedy for the adjudication of disputes related to service matters of public
servants. The court considered the question of whether the availability of the
alternative remedy provided by the Act would bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction
under Article 226.

"The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution. Such power
cannot be abrogated or taken away by providing for an alternative remedy unless
the statute provides for adequate and efficacious redressal mechanisms. The
 alternative mechanism must be equally effective, and if it is found to be deficient,
the aggrieved party can still approach the High Court under Article 226."

- State of Punjab v. Naginder Singh, (2011) 7 SCC 493: In this case, the Supreme
Court examined the question of whether the availability of an alternative statutory
remedy would bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in cases
concerning the determination of seniority of government employees.

"The availability of an alternative remedy will not bar the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution if such remedy is found to be not equally
efficacious or where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice or
where the statutory authority has not acted in conformity with the provisions of
the enactment."

2. When the statutory remedy is unconstitutional or ultra vires: The High Court may
hear a writ petition under Article 226 if the statutory remedy is ultra vires,
unconstitutional, or violates basic rights. The existence of an alternative remedy in such
circumstances does not preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Case Laws:
- A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62: The
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which prescribed an
alternative remedy of an appeal to the Appellate Authority against an order of the
Pollution Control Board, was up for review by the Supreme Court in this case.
The court evaluated whether the existence of the alternative remedy would
preclude the High Court's ability to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.

"Merely because the statute provides for an alternative remedy, it is not an

absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 if the statutory
remedy provided is unconstitutional, arbitrary, or violative of fundamental rights.
The constitutional validity of the statute can be examined by the High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226."

- Sharda Glass Industries v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (2006) 5 SCC

698: In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the Electricity (Supply)
Act of 1948's provision allowing an appeal before the Appellate Authority against
an order of the Electricity Board was constitutional. The court evaluated whether
the existence of the alternative remedy would preclude the High Court's ability to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.
 "The availability of an alternative remedy does not affect the power of judicial
review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the statutory
remedy provided is ultra vires, unconstitutional, or violative of fundamental
rights, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to strike
down such provision."

3. When there is a violation of natural justice: Even if an alternative remedy is available,

the High Court may nonetheless consider a writ petition under Article 226 if the
decision-making process violates natural justice principles. A legitimate justification for
using writ jurisdiction can be the infringement of basic rights or natural justice principles.

Case laws:
- State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (2002) 7 SCC 515: In this case, the
Supreme Court considered whether the existence of an alternative remedy would
preclude the High Court's capacity to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 in
cases where natural justice principles have been violated. The court debated
whether the injured party might seek relief from the High Court under Article 226
despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

"The availability of an alternative remedy will not bar the High Court from exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 if there has been a violation of principles of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice are an integral part of the concept of fairness in the
decision-making process, and any violation of these principles can be a valid ground for
invoking the writ jurisdiction."

- Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398: In this case, the Supreme
Court examined whether the availability of an alternative remedy would bar the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 when there is a violation of
principles of natural justice in the decision-making process. The court considered
the issue of whether the High Court could intervene under Article 226 despite the
existence of an alternative remedy.

"The availability of an alternative remedy will not operate as a bar if there is a

violation of principles of natural justice or if the statutory authority has not acted
in conformity with the provisions of the enactment. The High Court has the power
and jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when there has been
a breach of principles of natural justice."

4. When the alternative remedy is illusory or inadequate: The High Court may use its
writ power if the alternative remedy offered by a legislation is illusory or insufficient to
 afford effective redress. This exclusion applies if the alternative remedy is ineffective or
insufficient to address the complaint, or if it only provides a paper remedy.

Case laws:
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006: In this landmark case,
the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the availability of an alternative
remedy would bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 when the
alternative remedy is illusory or inadequate. The court considered whether the existence
of an alternative remedy that does not provide effective relief would preclude the exercise
of writ jurisdiction.

"Where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for
enforcing it, the availability of that remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 to issue a writ. But where there is an express bar of the
jurisdiction of the court, an alternative remedy provided by the statute must be first
availed of."

- Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651: In this case, the Supreme Court
considered whether the existence of an alternative remedy would preclude the High
Court's capacity to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 in cases where natural
justice principles have been violated. The court debated whether the injured party might
seek relief from the High Court under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative
remedy.

"Where a statutory remedy is illusory or inadequate, the High Court can exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226. If the remedy provided is a mere paper remedy or does not
offer effective relief, the aggrieved party is not required to exhaust that remedy before
approaching the High Court."

5. When there is a violation of fundamental rights: Regardless of the existence of an

alternative remedy, the High Court may exercise its writ authority under Article 226 in
the event that basic rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are violated. The
preservation of fundamental rights is regarded as being of utmost importance.

Case Laws:
- Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, (1967) 3 SCR 536: In this case, the
Supreme Court examined whether the availability of an alternative remedy would
bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 when there is a violation
of fundamental rights. The court considered whether the existence of an
 alternative remedy would preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction in cases
involving the infringement of fundamental rights.

"Where a person complains of a violation of his fundamental rights and seeks to

approach the High Court under Article 226, the mere availability of an alternative
remedy will not operate as a bar if the violation is patent and manifest or the
statutory authority acts without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural
justice."

- State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, AIR

1990 SC 207: In this case, the Supreme Court evaluated whether the existence of an
alternative remedy would preclude the High Court's ability to exercise its Article 226
jurisdiction over a claim of fundamental rights infringement. The court considered
whether the availability of a different remedy would bar the use of writ jurisdiction in
situations involving the violation of fundamental rights.

"The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly when there is an infringement of fundamental
rights or a violation of constitutional provisions. The power of judicial review vested in
the High Court is not to be curtailed or circumscribed merely because an alternative
remedy is available."

Conclusion
These exceptions show that although the rule of exhausting all available remedies is generally
followed, the High Court retains the right to use its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in
exceptional situations, such as when the alternative remedy is ineffective, the statutory remedy is
unconstitutional, or when natural justice principles have been violated. Although there may be an
alternative remedy, it is crucial to remember that each case will be judged on its own merits, and
the court will weigh a number of considerations before deciding whether to entertain a writ
petition.