# Article 226 vs 227: writ and supervisory jurisdiction **TL;DR:** Article 226 is the High Court's power to issue writs as a court of original jurisdiction, invoked by a petitioner to enforce rights against a public authority. Article 227 is the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals, supervisory in character, narrower in its grounds of interference, and not open to a Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court settled in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423 that writ certiorari under Article 226 does not lie against orders of civil courts; the correct remedy is Article 227 supervision. Getting the label wrong has procedural and appellate consequences. --- ## On this page - [The text: what the two articles actually say](#the-text-what-the-two-articles-actually-say) - [Nature of jurisdiction: original vs supervisory](#nature-of-jurisdiction-original-vs-supervisory) - [Who can invoke each article, and against whom](#who-can-invoke-each-article-and-against-whom) - [Grounds of interference compared](#grounds-of-interference-compared) - [Article 226 vs 227: comparison table](#article-226-vs-227-comparison-table) - [The Surya Dev Rai problem and how Radhey Shyam resolved it](#the-surya-dev-rai-problem-and-how-radhey-shyam-resolved-it) - [Letters Patent Appeal: the appellate consequence of choosing wrong](#letters-patent-appeal-the-appellate-consequence-of-choosing-wrong) - [Labelling and what courts do with mislabelled petitions](#labelling-and-what-courts-do-with-mislabelled-petitions) - [How Niyam helps](#how-niyam-helps) - [Frequently asked questions](#frequently-asked-questions) - [Key takeaways](#key-takeaways) --- ## The text: what the two articles actually say Article 226 and Article 227 sit side by side in Part VI of the Constitution, which deals with the States. They are separate powers, drawn from different constitutional logic. **Article 226** gives every High Court the 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." The opening words "notwithstanding anything in article 32" confirm that Article 226 is an independent grant. It covers fundamental rights, but also goes further: any legal or statutory right can be enforced through this original jurisdiction. **Article 227** is different in character. It reads: > "Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction." The specific powers given under Article 227 include calling for returns, making and issuing general rules and prescribing forms for regulating practice and proceedings of such courts, and prescribing forms in which books, entries, and accounts shall be kept. The High Court may also settle the fees payable to sheriff, clerks, and officers of courts, and the fees for ministerial acts. Article 227(4) adds that nothing in Article 227 limits any power vested in a High Court by or under any other law for the time being in force. Two things follow from reading these texts together. First, Article 226 is about issuing writs and directions to persons, authorities, and governments. Article 227 is about supervising courts and tribunals. Second, Article 226 creates original jurisdiction; Article 227 creates superintendence jurisdiction. The difference is not merely semantic. For an in-depth treatment of Article 226 itself, including territorial jurisdiction, the five writs, and the alternative-remedy rule, see [Article 226 and the writ jurisdiction of India's High Courts](/blog/high-courts-article-226). --- ## Nature of jurisdiction: original vs supervisory The most fundamental distinction between the two articles is the nature of the jurisdiction each creates. **Article 226: original jurisdiction.** When a High Court entertains a petition under Article 226, it exercises original jurisdiction. It is the court of first instance for the dispute before it. The petitioner files, the High Court hears, and the High Court decides. There is no "inferior court" whose record the High Court is reviewing; the High Court is itself adjudicating the grievance. This matters for several reasons. The parties submit evidence and affidavits directly to the High Court. The High Court can grant relief by way of writ, direction, or order as though it were trying the matter originally. Its decision on the merits of the petition is a judgment in original jurisdiction, and in High Courts with Letters Patent, an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the same High Court. **Article 227: supervisory jurisdiction.** When a High Court acts under Article 227, it does not adjudicate the underlying dispute. It supervises how a subordinate court or tribunal has handled its jurisdiction. The supervisory court does not substitute its own view of the facts or the law for that of the court below. It asks only whether the court below acted within the bounds of its authority, whether it exercised jurisdiction it had, declined jurisdiction it did not lack, or acted in a manner so perverse or arbitrary as to warrant correction. The Supreme Court described this distinction clearly in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (8) SCC 329: "No writ petition can be moved under Article 227 of the Constitution nor can a writ be issued under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be called a writ petition." The implication is clean. If a High Court grants certiorari under Article 226, it is exercising an original writ power. If it interferes with a subordinate court order under Article 227, it is doing something else: supervisory correction, which is "neither original nor appellate" (Shalini Shyam Shetty). --- ## Who can invoke each article, and against whom ### Article 226: invoked by the aggrieved party A writ petition under Article 226 is filed by a person or entity who claims that their rights have been violated by a public authority, the state, or any person discharging public functions. The petitioner moves the court; the High Court does not initiate Article 226 proceedings on its own. Enforcement is the objective: compelling a public body to act, restraining unlawful action, or quashing a bad order. The respondent in an Article 226 petition must broadly be a "person or authority" within the meaning of the article. The courts have held this to include statutory corporations, bodies exercising public functions, and, in some circumstances, private parties where a public element is involved. Territorial reach under Article 226 is defined by where the cause of action arises, not only where the authority is located. Article 226(2) allows a High Court to issue a writ against a person or authority located outside its territory if the cause of action arose, wholly or in part, within that territory. ### Article 227: exercisable suo motu, not purely petition-driven Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court on its own motion. A party may file a petition invoking Article 227, but the court is not bound by the framing of the petition. The High Court's superintendence power exists to protect the integrity of judicial administration, not merely to serve the litigant who files the petition. Article 227 operates only against courts and tribunals within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. It does not extend to authorities that are not courts or tribunals; for those, Article 226 is the appropriate vehicle. A key corollary: Article 227 cannot be invoked against a High Court by another High Court, nor can one Bench of a High Court exercise Article 227 supervision over another Bench of the same court. The hierarchy flows downward, from the High Court to the subordinate courts and tribunals beneath it. --- ## Grounds of interference compared This is where the practical difference bites the hardest. ### Under Article 226 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broad. The High Court can interfere on grounds of: - Violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. - Breach of any statutory right or legal entitlement. - Jurisdictional excess or deficit: the authority acted without jurisdiction, or refused to exercise jurisdiction it possessed. - Breach of the principles of natural justice. - Error apparent on the face of the record (for certiorari). - Arbitrariness or unreasonableness amounting to a constitutional violation. The "for any other purpose" language in Article 226 is the constitutional basis for this width. A petitioner need not anchor the claim to a fundamental right, though many do. ### Under Article 227 The grounds are deliberately narrower. A High Court under Article 227 does not sit as a court of appeal. It corrects jurisdictional errors, not ordinary errors of fact or law. The settled principle is that under Article 227, the High Court: - Can correct want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction. - Can correct a refusal to exercise jurisdiction the court below clearly had. - Can correct grave irregularities that occasion a failure of justice. - Cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute its assessment of facts for that of the court below. - Cannot correct every error of law; only errors that go to jurisdiction or are so fundamental as to amount to a failure of justice. The Shalini Shyam Shetty decision drew this line sharply: "the jurisdiction under Article 227 has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority." The word "sparingly" is deliberate. It reflects the constitutional logic that subordinate courts have their own appellate hierarchies. Article 227 is not a backdoor appeal. --- ## Article 226 vs 227: comparison table | Feature | Article 226 | Article 227 | |---|---|---| | Nature of jurisdiction | Original ✓ | Supervisory only ✓ | | Writ issuable? | ✓ Yes (all five writs) | ✗ No writ lies under Art 227 | | Who invokes? | Petitioner (aggrieved party) | Party or court suo motu | | Against whom? | Any person/authority/government | Courts and tribunals only | | Territorial basis | Cause of action in HC territory | Court/tribunal in HC territory | | Grounds of interference | Broad: rights, jurisdiction, NJ, error | Narrow: jurisdiction, grave illegality only | | Re-appreciation of evidence? | ✓ Possible in some cases | ✗ Not permissible | | Suo motu exercise? | ✗ Generally not | ✓ Yes | | Letters Patent Appeal? | ✓ Lies against single-judge order | ✗ Does not lie | | Certiorari against civil court order? | ✗ Not after Radhey Shyam (2015) | ✓ Supervisory review under Art 227 | | Effect of labelling | Determines appellate route | Determines appellate route | --- ## The Surya Dev Rai problem and how Radhey Shyam resolved it For much of the post-independence period, there was genuine uncertainty about whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 could be issued to quash an order of a civil court, such as an order on interim injunction or a revisional court's order. **Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 SC 3044 : (2003) 6 SCC 675** was the first major attempt to settle this. The Supreme Court was considering the impact of the 1999 amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which substantially curtailed the statutory revisional jurisdiction of High Courts over interlocutory orders. The question was whether, after that amendment, litigants could use Article 226 or Article 227 to fill the gap. A two-judge bench held that the 1999 CPC amendment, which reduced the revisional power, could not constitutionally abrogate the High Court's power under Article 226 or Article 227. It further held that orders of civil courts subordinate to the High Court were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Certiorari under Article 226, the bench said, was available, though it should be exercised with caution. That holding was controversial. It opened the door to High Courts entertaining writ petitions against every adverse interlocutory order of a civil trial court. The potential for delay and abuse was substantial. **Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423**, decided by a three-judge bench on 26 February 2015, overruled Surya Dev Rai on this specific point. The bench held: - Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. - A High Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari to a court that is a judicial court exercising judicial functions within its own jurisdiction. - The correct remedy, where a party seeks High Court interference with a civil court order, is supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. - The power under Article 227, however, must be exercised sparingly: only to correct jurisdictional errors or prevent a grave failure of justice, not to correct every error of law or factual finding. The practical effect: after Radhey Shyam (2015), a petition styled as seeking certiorari under Article 226 to quash a civil court order is misconceived. The appropriate label is Article 227. And because Article 227 attracts a narrower standard of review, the petitioner faces a higher bar. Understanding how to read these landmark orders is itself a skill; [how to read and brief an Indian judgment](/blog/how-to-read-a-judgment) walks through the method. --- ## Letters Patent Appeal: the appellate consequence of choosing wrong In High Courts that retain Letters Patent jurisdiction (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Delhi, Allahabad, and others), a Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) to a Division Bench lies against certain orders of a single Judge. The availability of an LPA turns critically on whether the order was made under Article 226 or Article 227. The settled position, confirmed by the Supreme Court in multiple decisions and by High Courts in their own Letters Patent, is: - An LPA lies against an order of a single Judge exercising **Article 226** jurisdiction. Because Article 226 is original jurisdiction, the judgment is one in original proceedings, and the LPA machinery that governs appeals from original-side judgments applies. - An LPA does **not** lie against an order of a single Judge acting in **Article 227** supervisory jurisdiction. Supervisory jurisdiction is not original jurisdiction. The single Judge is not deciding a case originally; the Judge is reviewing what a subordinate court did. That review is final at the single-Judge stage and is not amenable to an intra-court appeal under the Letters Patent. This distinction is consequential. A litigant who loses before a single Judge on an Article 227 petition has no LPA. The next step is a special leave petition to the Supreme Court under Article 136, an entirely different level of court, with a different threshold ("special leave" requires exceptional or important grounds). The petitioner who mislabelled an Article 226 petition as Article 227, or vice versa, may find the appellate avenue they expected is closed. Courts have addressed mixed orders, where a single Judge makes findings that touch both Articles. Where the order is predominantly under Article 226, an LPA may be held to lie. Where the relief is entirely supervisory and no writ has been issued, no LPA generally lies. In practice, practitioners should resist combining both articles in a prayer when they are seeking different things, because the labelling problem compounds at the appellate stage. --- ## Labelling and what courts do with mislabelled petitions The question of labelling is more nuanced than it appears. Courts do not automatically dismiss a petition merely because it is wrongly labelled. The principle is that the nature of the jurisdiction exercised depends on the substance of what the petitioner seeks and what the court does, not the heading on the petition. If a petitioner files a petition under "Article 226/227" without distinguishing between the two, and the High Court is asked to review a civil court order, the court will ordinarily treat the petition as one under Article 227 after Radhey Shyam. The relief granted, and the grounds available, will be those that apply to Article 227 supervision. Conversely, if a petitioner seeks to enforce a statutory right against a government body, the petition under Article 226 stands on its own merits, regardless of whether Article 227 is also mentioned. Courts are not misled by an omnibus "226 and/or 227" heading; they look at the respondent, the relief, and the ground to determine which power is actually being invoked. However, the labelling matters acutely for the Letters Patent Appeal. A court that entertains a petition and decides it without clearly stating whether it was acting under Article 226 or Article 227 creates appellate confusion. Parties should ask for clarity, and single Judges should record which article they are acting under when the two are potentially in play. The interplay between supervisory jurisdiction and fundamental rights petitions is another dimension. Where a writ petition raises a fundamental rights violation, that petition must be framed under Article 226 regardless of the nature of the respondent. Article 227 does not authorize a High Court to vindicate fundamental rights; that power belongs to Article 226 (and Article 32 for the Supreme Court). This is also a useful lens for analysing the difference between the Supreme Court's Article 32 jurisdiction and the High Court's Article 226 jurisdiction, a topic examined in [the electoral bonds judgment analysis](/blog/electoral-bonds-judgment) in its discussion of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Niyam can surface citations from 72,000+ Indian judgments on how specific High Courts have dealt with mislabelling, the availability of LPAs, and the shifting standards of Article 227 review across different benches, grounded in primary sources with every result cited. --- ## How Niyam helps Preparing a petition under Article 226 or Article 227 requires verifying which jurisdiction you are actually invoking, confirming the standard of review, and checking the latest High Court practice on that specific court. Niyam researches Indian statutes, constitutional provisions, and case law across 72,000+ Indian judgments, and drafts and reviews arguments grounded in primary sources with every answer cited. Whether you need to distinguish Radhey Shyam on your facts or identify how a particular High Court applies Article 227 after the 2015 ruling, Niyam gives you the cited starting point. [Start for ₹100](https://app.niyam.ai/register) and run your first research query on the Article 226 vs 227 question for your matter. --- ## Frequently asked questions ### What is the main difference between Article 226 and Article 227? Article 226 is original jurisdiction: the High Court issues writs to enforce rights against any person, authority, or government. Article 227 is supervisory jurisdiction: the High Court oversees courts and tribunals within its territory to keep them within the bounds of their authority. Article 226 is invoked by a petitioner; Article 227 can be exercised suo motu. ### Can a writ of certiorari be issued under Article 226 to quash a civil court order? No, not after Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ certiorari under Article 226. The correct remedy for challenging a civil court order in the High Court is supervisory review under Article 227. ### Does a Letters Patent Appeal lie against an Article 227 order? No. A Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order of a single Judge exercising original jurisdiction under Article 226. Because Article 227 is supervisory and not original jurisdiction, no LPA is available against a purely Article 227 order. The next remedy is a petition for special leave under Article 136 before the Supreme Court. ### Can a High Court exercise Article 227 jurisdiction over a tribunal? Yes. Article 227 extends to all courts and tribunals within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. This includes statutory tribunals, industrial courts, and quasi-judicial bodies that discharge judicial or adjudicatory functions, even if they are not courts in the traditional sense. ### Can the High Court exercise Article 227 jurisdiction suo motu? Yes. Unlike Article 226, which requires a petitioner, Article 227 superintendence can be initiated by the High Court on its own motion if it becomes aware that a subordinate court is acting outside its jurisdiction or in a manner that requires correction. ### What happened in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai? In AIR 2003 SC 3044 : (2003) 6 SCC 675, the Supreme Court held that orders of civil courts were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 even after the 1999 amendment to Section 115 CPC curtailed revisional powers. The bench also distinguished the nature of Article 226 (original) and Article 227 (supervisory) jurisdiction. However, the part that permitted certiorari against civil court orders was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Radhey Shyam (2015). ### What did Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath decide? In (2015) 5 SCC 423, a three-judge bench held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. The power to review such orders in the High Court lies only under Article 227, and must be exercised sparingly, only for jurisdictional errors or to prevent grave injustice. ### What does "supervisory" mean in the context of Article 227? Supervisory jurisdiction means the High Court checks whether the subordinate court stayed within the limits of its authority. It does not mean the High Court can re-decide the case, re-evaluate evidence, or substitute its own findings for those of the court below. The High Court corrects excess or absence of jurisdiction, not ordinary legal errors. ### Can Article 227 be used to correct every error of law in a subordinate court? No. Article 227 review is narrow. It is available for jurisdictional errors and grave irregularities amounting to a failure of justice. Ordinary errors of law or appreciation of evidence, which may be correctable in a statutory revision or appeal, are not grounds for Article 227 interference. ### Is there any overlap between Article 226 and Article 227? Yes, in the sense that a High Court can sometimes achieve a similar practical result under either article. But the legal character of what it is doing differs. Under Article 226, it issues a writ and exercises original jurisdiction. Under Article 227, it exercises superintendence and imposes no writ. Courts have been clear (notably in Shalini Shyam Shetty, 2010 (8) SCC 329) that the two powers operate in different constitutional fields and should not be conflated. ### Can a petitioner invoke both Article 226 and Article 227 in the same petition? Petitioners commonly do, particularly where the correct categorisation is uncertain. Courts will determine the applicable article from the substance of the petition, not the heading. However, for LPA purposes, it is essential to know which article the single Judge ultimately decided under. ### Why does the labelling of a petition as 226 or 227 matter? Because it determines the appellate route. An order under Article 226 (original jurisdiction) is typically susceptible to a Letters Patent Appeal in High Courts with LPA jurisdiction. An order under Article 227 (supervisory) is not. A litigant who assumes there is an LPA available after an Article 227 order will lose the limitation period for the actual remedy, which is an SLP before the Supreme Court. ### What is the territorial limit for Article 227? Article 227 applies to all courts and tribunals "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction." The High Court cannot exercise Article 227 superintendence over a court or tribunal situated outside its territorial jurisdiction, even if parties in that proceeding are from within its territory. ### Can Article 226 be used to challenge a tribunal order? Yes. A writ petition under Article 226 is available against tribunals, provided the tribunal is discharging public functions or is a state or statutory body. After L. Chandra Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 261, the Supreme Court confirmed that judicial review under Article 226 over tribunal orders is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be excluded by statute. ### Does Article 227 apply to High Courts? No. Article 227 gives a High Court superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals. One High Court cannot exercise Article 227 jurisdiction over another High Court. Nor can one Bench of a High Court exercise Article 227 supervision over a different Bench of the same court. ### Is Article 227 a fundamental right? No. Article 227 is a constitutional power of the High Court, not a fundamental right. It is part of the structural provisions dealing with High Courts. A party has no absolute entitlement to Article 227 review; the High Court exercises it at its discretion, and must exercise it sparingly. ### What is the difference between Article 227 and the old Section 115 CPC revision? Section 115 CPC revision (before the 1999 amendment) was a statutory revisional power available to the High Court over interlocutory orders. It was narrower and could be exercised only on specific grounds. After the 1999 amendment, Section 115 was restricted to final orders. Article 227 is a constitutional power that survived the amendment and remains available, but is subject to its own standard of narrow, sparingly-used superintendence. ### Can Article 227 be invoked in service matters or purely administrative actions? Only to the extent that a court or tribunal is involved. If the grievance is purely against an executive authority's administrative action, Article 226 is the vehicle. Article 227 is limited to the judicial functioning of courts and tribunals. An executive order, even if made by a body with judicial attributes, may need to be challenged under Article 226 rather than Article 227. ### How does Article 227 differ from appellate jurisdiction? An appeal requires a statutory right of appeal, enables a full re-hearing on merits, and allows the appellate court to substitute its decision for that of the court below. Article 227 supervision is not a right; it is a discretionary constitutional power. The High Court under Article 227 does not re-hear the case; it only examines whether the court below stayed within jurisdiction and acted without a grave procedural failure. ### Are there any restrictions on who can file an Article 227 petition? The party must be one who was a party to the proceedings before the subordinate court. A stranger to those proceedings generally cannot invoke Article 227 to challenge a court order. The petitioner must also show that they have suffered or will suffer prejudice from the act of the subordinate court that is said to exceed its jurisdiction. ### What is the standard for granting interim relief in Article 227 petitions? Courts are generally reluctant to grant interim relief in Article 227 petitions because the supervisory power is itself meant to be exercised at the end of the process. If interim relief is sought, the petitioner must show not only the usual prima facie case and balance of convenience, but also that the order of the subordinate court is so clearly in excess of jurisdiction that allowing it to stand during the pendency of the petition would itself cause irreparable harm. --- ## Key takeaways - Article 226 is original writ jurisdiction invoked by a petitioner against any person, authority, or government to enforce rights; Article 227 is supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court over subordinate courts and tribunals. - Writ certiorari under Article 226 does not lie against orders of civil courts: Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, overruled the contrary view in Surya Dev Rai (2003) and settled this point. - Article 227 review is narrow: jurisdictional excess, absence of jurisdiction, or grave failure of justice. It is not an appeal and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. - Letters Patent Appeals lie against Article 226 orders (original jurisdiction) but not against Article 227 orders (supervisory jurisdiction). Choosing the wrong label can close the appellate route. - Article 227 can be exercised suo motu; Article 226 requires a petitioner to move the court. - Courts look at the substance of the petition, not the label, to decide which power is being invoked. But the label matters critically for LPA availability. - Legal research grounding the correct article in the right case law is essential before filing; see also [good-law checking and the Indian citator guide](/blog/good-law-checking) for how to confirm that the case you are relying on has not been overruled. [Start for ₹100](https://app.niyam.ai/register) and research how your High Court has applied Article 226 and Article 227 after Radhey Shyam, with citations, in seconds.