Article 227: High Court’s Power of Superintendence
Introduction
Article 227 of the Indian Constitution gives every High Court the power of superintendence (general supervision and control) over courts and certain tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. This power helps ensure that subordinate courts act within their legal authority and follow proper judicial procedures. However, it does not allow High Courts to act as ordinary appellate courts in every case.
Meaning and Definition of Article 227
Article 227 provides that every High Court has superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in which it exercises jurisdiction, subject to the constitutional exception for courts and tribunals dealing with the Armed Forces.
The purpose of this provision is to maintain proper functioning of the subordinate judicial system and ensure that courts and tribunals act according to law.
The power under Article 227 is supervisory in nature. It is different from an appeal, in which a higher court examines a decision and may reconsider the merits of the case.
Scope and Powers under Article 227
General power of superintendence
Under Article 227(1), a High Court can supervise courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. This helps the High Court ensure that subordinate judicial bodies remain within the limits of their legal powers.
The power may be exercised when a subordinate court or tribunal acts beyond its authority, fails to follow an essential legal procedure, or commits a serious error that requires supervisory correction.
Power to call for returns
Under Article 227(2)(a), the High Court may call for returns from subordinate courts. This allows it to obtain information about their proceedings or functioning.
Power to make rules and prescribe forms
Under Article 227(2)(b), the High Court may make general rules and prescribe forms to regulate the practice and proceedings of subordinate courts.
These rules help maintain consistency in court procedures and the way cases are handled.
Power to prescribe records and accounts
Under Article 227(2)(c), the High Court may prescribe the forms in which books, entries and accounts must be maintained by officers of subordinate courts.
This supports proper record-keeping and administration within the judicial system.
Power to regulate fees
Under Article 227(3), the High Court may settle tables of fees payable to specified court officials and legal practitioners, including sheriffs, clerks, officers, attorneys, advocates and pleaders.
Rules, forms and fee tables made under Article 227(2) and Article 227(3) must not conflict with any law in force and require the approval specified in the constitutional proviso, namely the previous approval of the Governor.
Limitations on the Power under Article 227
It is not an ordinary appellate power
Article 227 does not give the High Court a general right to reconsider every factual or legal finding made by a subordinate court. It is not meant to replace the normal appeal or revision process.
The High Court generally intervenes where necessary to keep a subordinate court or tribunal within the limits of its authority or to correct a serious failure of justice.
It must be exercised sparingly
The power is discretionary, meaning the High Court decides whether intervention is necessary in the circumstances. It should be used with care and not simply because another view of the facts or law is possible.
Armed Forces courts and tribunals are excluded
Article 227(4) expressly provides that the High Court cannot exercise superintendence under this Article over a court or tribunal constituted under a law relating to the Armed Forces.
Important Case Law
Waryam Singh v. Amarnath (1954)
The Supreme Court of India explained that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is intended to keep subordinate courts within the limits of their authority and ensure that they perform their duties according to law.
The case is an important authority on the supervisory role of High Courts under Article 227.
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010)
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 227 is a supervisory power and should not be treated as an ordinary appellate jurisdiction. High Courts should exercise it sparingly and only in appropriate cases.
The decision emphasised that Article 227 is meant to correct serious errors of jurisdiction (the legal authority to hear and decide a matter) and not to permit routine re-examination of every subordinate court decision.
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015)
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between Articles 226 and 227 in relation to judicial orders of civil courts. It held that judicial orders of civil courts are not challenged under Article 226 as if they were administrative actions; the appropriate constitutional supervisory provision is Article 227, subject to its limits.
Distinction Between Articles 226 and 227
| Basis | Article 226 | Article 227 |
|---|---|---|
| Main purpose | Allows High Courts to issue writs to enforce fundamental rights and for other legal purposes. | Gives High Courts supervisory power over subordinate courts and tribunals. |
| Nature of power | Constitutional writ jurisdiction. | Constitutional power of superintendence. |
| Scope | Can be used against public authorities and other bodies where the legal requirements are met. | Focuses on supervising courts and tribunals within the High Court’s jurisdiction. |
| Main objective | Enforce rights and provide appropriate legal remedies. | Keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and ensure proper judicial functioning. |
| Ordinary appeal | Does not itself replace statutory appeals. | Is not an ordinary appeal and should not be used to reconsider every decision. |
Practical Example
Suppose a subordinate civil court proceeds to decide a matter that it has no legal authority to hear. If the error is serious and requires supervisory intervention, the affected party may approach the High Court under Article 227.
The High Court may examine whether the subordinate court has acted within its legal authority and may issue appropriate directions. However, Article 227 cannot ordinarily be used merely because a party disagrees with the court’s assessment of evidence or its decision on the merits.
Summary
- Article 227 gives every High Court supervisory power over courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.
- The High Court may call for returns, regulate court procedures, prescribe record-keeping forms and settle specified fee tables.
- Rules, forms and fee tables made under Article 227(2) and (3) must be consistent with existing law and require the approval stated in the constitutional proviso.
- Article 227 is not an ordinary appellate power and should be exercised sparingly.
- Article 227(4) excludes courts and tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces.
- Important cases include Waryam Singh v. Amarnath (1954), Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) and Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015).