Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Jurisdiction – Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported.
Power of Superintendence over all Courts by the High Court
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.
1[(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.]
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may—
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall 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.
4(5)* * * * *
1. Cl. (1) has been successively subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 40 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 31 to read as above (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
2. Cl. (5) was ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 40 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) and omitted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 31 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
CASE LAW REFERENCE
The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel [Supreme Court of India, 11 January 2022]