The Hindu : National : Writ jurisdiction only to avert miscarriage of justice

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Writ jurisdiction only to avert miscarriage of justice

Legal Correspondent

Error of fact can’t be corrected by a writ: apex court

High Court can’t convert itself into court of appeal
Discretionary power governed by dictates of judicial conscience

New Delhi: High Courts cannot exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct errors of fact or law except in cases causing a grave miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court has held.

“It is settled law that a writ of certiorari can be issued only in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or [when] they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction, causing grave miscarriage of justice,” said a Bench consisting of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P. Sathasivam.

On a finding of fact recorded by an authority, “a writ of certiorari could be issued only if the authority had acted on evidence which was legally inadmissible; the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or [in] utter disregard of the provisions of law. It is needless to mention that a pure error of fact, however grave, cannot be corrected by a writ.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “The High Court in exercise of the certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in a re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of a mere formal or technical character.”

The Bench said though the High Court had the power, its exercise was discretionary governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by the judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge.

In the instant case, B.K. Muniraju and others were aggrieved at a Karnataka High Court judgment refusing to issue a writ of certiorari to interfere with the factual decision of ownership of disputed land arrived at by revenue authorities. The apex court dismissed the appeal against that judgment.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National