Article 226

In one line

Every High Court may issue any of the writs for the enforcement of a fundamental right and for any other purpose, throughout its territories and wherever the cause of action arises.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: article 226(1) provides that notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, 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. Clause (2) extends the power to a High Court within whose territories the cause of action wholly or in part arises, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person is outside those territories. Clause (3) provides a procedure for the vacation of an ex parte interim order.

The three ways in which it is wider

For any other purpose. This is the great difference. Article 32 lies only for the enforcement of a fundamental right; article 226 lies for that and for any other purpose, which covers the enforcement of ordinary legal rights, statutory duties and, in practice, the whole of administrative law. A person who cannot show a breach of Part III can still move a High Court.

Territorial reach by cause of action. Clause (2), inserted to overcome the difficulty that the seat of the Union Government is in Delhi, allows a High Court to issue a writ where the cause of action wholly or in part arises within its territories, notwithstanding that the Government or authority sits elsewhere. A detenu in one State whose detention order was made by an authority in another can be heard where the cause of action arose.

Against any person or authority. The words are to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, which has permitted the jurisdiction to be exercised against bodies that are not the State within article 12 where a public duty is in question.

The one way in which it is narrower

It is a power, not a guaranteed right. Article 32(1) says the right to move the Supreme Court is guaranteed, and article 32 is itself a fundamental right in Part III. Article 226 confers a power on the High Court, and is not in Part III.

Two consequences follow and both are examinable. The High Court has a discretion, and may decline relief on grounds of delay, alternative remedy, suppression of facts or conduct, in a way the Supreme Court in theory cannot under article 32. And a petitioner cannot say that the refusal of relief under article 226 is itself the violation of a fundamental right.