Article 227: The Power of Superintendence
Chapter Thirty
Syllabus topic 3, "Jurisdiction"
Pages 91 to 93 of 430
In one line
Article 227 lets a High Court keep every court and tribunal below it working properly, whether or not anybody complains.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: Article 227(1) provides that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction; the power is both judicial and administrative, may be exercised suo motu, and is not confined to the grounds on which certiorari lies.
The provision
Clause (1). Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
Clause (2). Without prejudice to the generality of that provision, the High Court may call for returns from those courts, make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating their practice and proceedings, and prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts are to be kept.
Clause (3). The High Court may settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff, clerks, officers and legal practitioners, subject to any law and to the approval of the Governor where required.
Clause (4). Nothing in the article is to be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Why it is a separate power, and not a duplicate of certiorari
It is administrative as well as judicial. Clause (2) is plainly administrative: returns, rules, forms and accounts. No writ does that.
It may be exercised without a party asking. A High Court may act on the record before it, or on a return called for, whereas certiorari issues only on a petition.
It is not confined to the certiorari grounds. Certiorari lies for want or excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice and error of law apparent on the face of the record. Superintendence extends to keeping subordinate courts within their authority and to ensuring that they do their duty, which is a wider formula, though the courts have kept it disciplined so that it does not become an appeal.
It reaches courts as well as tribunals. Certiorari does not lie against a court of superior or co-ordinate jurisdiction, and its application to the ordinary civil courts was historically limited; Article 227 names all courts and tribunals within the territory.
The limits the courts have imposed
Because the words are so wide, the restraint is judge-made and a student should know its shape.
It is not an appellate power. The High Court does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusion on facts. The reasoning is the same as in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, though that case was about certiorari.
Article 227: The Power of Superintendence
It is used sparingly and in exceptional cases, to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority, not to correct every error.
It cannot be used to interfere with a discretion properly exercised by the court below.
It does not lie against the Armed Forces tribunals by force of clause (4).
Certiorari and superintendence compared
| Certiorari under Article 226 | Superintendence under Article 227 | |
|---|---|---|
| Initiated by | A petition by a party | A party, or the Court suo motu |
| Directed against | The record of the inferior body | The subordinate court or tribunal itself |
| Grounds | Want or excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, error of law apparent on the record | Keeping the subordinate body within its authority and making it do its duty |
| What the Court does | Quashes the order and ordinarily remits | May quash, may direct, and may act administratively |
| Bodies reached | Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and now administrative bodies | All courts and tribunals in the territory, excluding Armed Forces tribunals |
| Nature | Judicial only | Judicial and administrative |
The consequence for tribunals after L. Chandra Kumar
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure, and directed that decisions of tribunals be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls. Article 227 is therefore not an ornament: it is one half of the constitutional guarantee that no tribunal in India is final.
A worked example
A Rent Controller in Nagpur adjourns a tenant's application eleven times over three years without recording reasons, and finally dismisses it for want of prosecution on a day when the tenant's advocate was before another court in the same building on the Controller's own list.
Certiorari is available for the final order, because dismissing without notice of the risk is a breach of natural justice. But Article 227 does more useful work: the High Court may set aside the dismissal, direct the Controller to decide the application within a fixed time, and, if the pattern is general, call for returns under clause (2) and issue directions about adjournments. That is superintendence rather than review of a single order, and it is why the two are pleaded together.
What this does NOT mean
It does not mean the High Court can retry the case. The restraint is judge-made but it is real, and an order under Article 227 which reappreciates evidence is routinely set aside.
It does not mean Article 227 is available against every body. It runs to courts and tribunals, not to a purely administrative authority; against those the remedy is Article 226.
Article 227: The Power of Superintendence
It does not mean a party can convert a time-barred appeal into a petition under Article 227. Delay defeats it as it defeats any discretionary remedy.
Quick revision
Article 227(1) gives every High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territory; clause (2) adds returns, rules, forms and accounts; clause (3) tables of fees; clause (4) excludes Armed Forces tribunals. It is judicial and administrative, exercisable suo motu, wider in its grounds than certiorari and reaching courts as well as tribunals, but it is not appellate and is used sparingly. After L. Chandra Kumar it is part of the basic structure and is the route by which a tribunal's decision reaches a Division Bench of the High Court.
Test yourself
1. Give two respects in which Article 227 is wider than certiorari. It may be exercised without any party applying, and it is administrative as well as judicial, extending to returns, rules and forms under clause (2).
2. Which bodies are outside Article 227 altogether? Courts and tribunals constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces, by clause (4).
3. What is the standing limit on the power? It is supervisory, not appellate: the High Court does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view on facts, and it interferes sparingly to keep subordinate bodies within their authority.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.