Introduction
In a significant ruling strengthening the doctrine of alternate remedy, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 should normally not be entertained if an effective and efficacious alternate statutory remedy exists, even if that remedy lies before the same High Court but under a different jurisdiction. Delivered by a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar, the judgment reinforces a core constitutional principle: the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary, not a substitute for statutory remedies.
This decision clarifies an important procedural aspect that frequently arises before High Courts—whether a litigant can bypass a statutory appellate or revisional forum and directly invoke Article 226. The ruling brings renewed emphasis on judicial discipline, efficiency, and hierarchical consistency within the justice system.
Background: Article 226 and Judicial Restraint
Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue directions, orders, and writs to enforce fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.” While the jurisdiction is extremely wide, it has historically been exercised with self-imposed restraint.
The doctrine of alternate remedy is a crucial facet of this restraint. Courts have consistently held that if a statute provides a mechanism—such as appeal, revision, or review—litigants should normally exhaust those remedies before approaching the High Court.
This principle ensures:
- Efficient judicial administration
- Respect for statutory frameworks
- Prevention of parallel proceedings
- Avoidance of forum shopping
The latest verdict continues this jurisprudential trend and addresses a modern nuance: what if the alternate remedy lies before a different jurisdictional stream within the same High Court?
Supreme Court’s Observation: Writ Should Not Be Entertained
The Supreme Court made it clear that the existence of an alternate remedy is not limited to tribunals or subordinate courts. If the statute provides a remedy before the High Court itself—albeit under a different jurisdiction, such as appellate, revisional, or commercial jurisdiction—the writ court must typically decline to exercise power under Article 226.
The Bench stated:
“The principle, plainly, is that, if a remedy is available to a party before the High Court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226.”
Thus, even when the alternate remedy is available within the same constitutional court, the maintainability of the writ petition is affected.
This clarifies a grey zone where litigants sometimes argue that since the High Court is the same institution, they should have a choice regarding which jurisdiction to approach. The Supreme Court expressly rejected this approach.
Why the Alternate Remedy Doctrine Matters
1. Preventing Circumvention of Statutory Procedure
Statutory forums are created to handle specific subject-matter disputes with specialised expertise and structured mechanisms. Allowing writ petitions to bypass such forums undermines legislative intent.
2. Ensuring Judicial Efficiency
High Courts are overburdened, and entertaining writ petitions where alternate remedies exist adds unnecessary strain. The doctrine preserves judicial time for urgent or constitutional matters.
3. Promoting Fairness & Consistency
When similarly situated litigants follow statutory procedures, allowing a few to directly invoke Article 226 would create inequality.
4. Respecting Judicial Hierarchies
Even within High Courts, jurisdictions differ in scope and purpose. Allowing writ petitions to supersede statutory jurisdictions disturbs the judicial architecture.
Exceptions to the Alternate Remedy Rule
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the rule is not absolute. Article 226 can still be invoked despite an alternate remedy in situations such as:
- Violation of fundamental rights
- Lack of jurisdiction
- Breach of natural justice
- Patent perversity or arbitrariness
- When the alternate remedy is ineffective or illusory
However, litigants must specifically establish these exceptions. Otherwise, the rule applies with full force.
Implications of the Ruling
1. High Courts Will Likely Dismiss More Writ Petitions at the Threshold
With this clarificatory ruling, High Courts may adopt a stricter approach while screening writ petitions, especially in commercial, tax, service, and regulatory matters where statutory appeal mechanisms exist.
2. Litigants Must Carefully Assess the Statutory Framework
Before filing a writ petition, parties must identify whether a statutory appeal, revision, or review is available—even within a different jurisdiction of the same High Court.
3. Greater Uniformity in High Court Practice
Different benches across India previously took varying approaches to this internal jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court’s articulation now sets a uniform standard.
4. Reinforcement of Constitutional Balance
The principle protects the structure of judicial power and preserves the extraordinary nature of Article 226.
Relevant Precedents Supporting the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s judgment aligns with several landmark decisions, including:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) – alternate remedy rule with exceptions.
- Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation (2003) – writs maintainable when fundamental rights violated or remedy inadequate.
- CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2013) – reiterated that writ petitions should not be entertained if statutory remedies exist.
The new ruling extends the principle to alternate remedies available within the High Court itself, making it a significant jurisprudential addition.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision reasserts the primacy of statutory remedies over direct writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even when such remedies fall within the High Court’s other jurisdictions. The ruling strengthens judicial discipline, reduces unnecessary writ petitions, and upholds the functional design of statutory adjudication.
For litigants and lawyers alike, the message is clear: exhaust alternate remedies first, and approach the writ court only in exceptional circumstances. This judgment will play a critical role in shaping how High Courts handle maintainability objections and reinforce procedural propriety in writ litigation.
Also Read
