Supreme Court Summarises Principles For Exercise Of Article 227 Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court recently clarified that High Courts cannot re-examine facts or substitute their own judgment when using their supervisory powers under Article 227. It stressed that Article 227 allows High Courts to check for jurisdictional errors or perverse findings by subordinate courts, but not to act as an appellate court to re-appreciate the merits of a case. For CLAT aspirants, remember this ruling highlights the distinct and limited scope of High Courts' supervisory jurisdiction, which is not an appellate power.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the High Courts, while exercising the supervisory Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the issues to substitute their view in place of what was decided by the subordinate court.
The Court said that the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to adjudicate the plea on merits, rather its examination should be restricted to determine whether the subordinate court has exceeded in its jurisdiction 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.
A bench ofJustice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjarialaid down the following principles for the High Courts while deciding an Article 227 writ petition:
"a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an
(a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or
(c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.
b) 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.
c) 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 case arose from a 2007 compromise between NICE and landowners in Bengaluru. NICE had taken part of the land for a road project and agreed to either give alternate land or pay compensation based on the government guideline value.
When NICE failed to provide alternate land, the landowners approached the executing court for compensation. The executing court fixed the value at ₹1,000 per sq. ft.
However, the High Court later reduced this to ₹500 per sq. ft. using its powers under Article 227, prompting the NICE to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored byJustice Aravind Kumarrestored the executing court's decision and held that Article 227 is meant only for supervisory control, not for re-examining the merits of a case.
The High Court cannot replace a reasonable decision with its own view just because it disagrees, the court said, stressing that the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to reassess the case on merits.
The Court held that by re-determining the compensation amount, the High Court had transgressed its jurisdiction, and had effectively acted as an appellate court to modify the executing court's findings, despite no jurisdictional error on the part of the executing court.
By adopting an alternative view to that of the executing court, the Court held to have travelled beyond the limits of the narrow and circumscribed scrutiny permissible under Article 227.
In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR. VERSUS B. GURAPPA NAIDU & ORS.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Vibhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mr. S.B.Mathapati, Adv. Mr. Kotrabasappa, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mr. S.B.Mathapati, Adv. Mr. Kotrabasappa, Adv. Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Vibhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sati, Adv.
Related:Article 227 | High Courts Cannot Reassess Materials Considered By Trial Courts : Supreme Court