Article 226 of the Constitution 

Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution confer authority upon the Supreme Court and the High Courts, respectively, to issue writs such as habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. The subsequent judgments from the Supreme Court elucidate the scope of this power.

 Recent Case:

Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2022
2022 (Mad) 274
Judgment delivered by: Justices T. Raja & K. Kumaresh Babu

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Madras, seeking a Writ of Certiorari against an NCLT order. The NCLT directed the Resolution Professional to file an Interim Application under Section 106 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by a specified date.

Observation and Decision:
The High Court held that the petitioner had an adequate remedy before the NCLAT, making Article 226 inapplicable. The writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the plea before the NCLAT.

Umesh Kumar Pahwa vs Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155
Case no.|date: CA 796-¬799 OF 2022 | 11 Feb 2022
Judgment delivered by: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Facts of the case:

The appellant, a Bank Branch Officer, faced disciplinary action resulting in removal from service, upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court. And the appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/¬ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/- when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held the most of the charges as proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service.

Observation and Decision:
1. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that a High Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review, is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority.
2. In appeal, the bench noted that the appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28 years there are no allegations against him. The court further held that the punishment of removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate. However, considering the fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee by the Bank, the court deem it just and proper to substitute the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.
3. Regarding the contention that he did not conduct any misconduct, the bench observed thus:
“So far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not conducted any misconduct and the finding recorded by the inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverse is concerned, the High Court is justified in holding that in the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. ”
4. Disposing the appeal, the court held that the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to him by converting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.

Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma
LL 2021 SC 123
Judgment delivered by: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

The Supreme Court noted that under Article 226, a High Court can quash an FIR if it is an abuse of process of law. In this case, the accused’s petition to quash an FIR under Sections 420/406 IPC was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the court’s inherent powers are meant to prevent criminal proceedings from becoming tools of harassment.

The Court clarified that if an FIR is an abuse of process or lodged to harass the accused, it can be quashed under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., safeguarding the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the legal process and ensure justice. The Court further stated that if the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed. As held by this Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.