Difference between Article 226 and Article 227
In common practice of law, it is the stupidity of lawyers even the best of advocates or senior advocates to use remedies or Article 226 and Article 227 together. It is common to see petitions filed under Article 226/227 226/227 as one petition. However, in reality these two articles are very different in their scope and application. he difference was well e!plained in the case of "urya #ev $ai v. $am %hander $ai Article 226 gives the power to the High %ourts to issue certain writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. his means that the &urisdiction of the High %ourt under Article 226 is limited to the case s primarily of violation of fundamental rights of individuals. A writ maybe issued against the "tate or in some cases privated individuals as well. 'efore coming to Article 227, one needs to understand understand the the revisional &urisdiction &urisdiction under "ection (() of the %ivil *rocedure %ode, (+- %*%. $evision is a power under which the higher courts 0eep the authority of the subordinate courts under chec0 in cases of errors of &urisdiction. 1rrors of &urisdiction can be of three types a overstepping the &urisdiction3 b e!ercising &urisdiction where not provided c refusing to e!ercise &urisdiction where present 4ow, under "ec (() of the %*% a revision petition maybe presented to the revisional court not not nece necessa ssaril rily y the the High High %our %ourt t,, gene general rally ly it is the the cour courtt ne!t ne!t in hiera hierarc rchy hy,, to see0 see0 modification of the orders by the aggrieved party. 5hen the court is sitting in revision then the revisi revisiona onall can only only correct correct the errors errors of &urisd &urisdicti iction on and cannot substitu substitute te its own understanding of facts and evidence and pass a completely new order. he &urisdiction is limited to the e!tent of modification of orders so as to bring the subordinate courts within their proper &urisdiction. nce revision power is clear then we shall proceed to Article 227, which tal0s about the general superintendence over subordinate courts. It includes administrative powers as well as &udicial powers in Article 227 2 2 a. *owers under article 227 are ar e of very wide nature and
are wider than those provided under "ection (() %*%. 5hile sitting in revision the High %ourt can only modify the order of the subordinate court so as to correct the errors of &urisdiction. However, powers under Article 227 are wider than those and shall be discussed below. #ifference between Article 226 and 227. he confusion between Article 226 and 227 will arise only in respect of writ of certiorari. 5rit of certiorari can be issued under both the articles and therefore, the uestion of differentiation is important. n technical aspects, the difference is that while the proceedings under Article 226 are of original nature the proceedings under Article 227 are of revisional nature i.e., not original. herefore, there is difference in the manner how the high court can e!ercise its &urisdiction and powers under both articles. 5hile passing an order or writ of certiorari the High %ourt can only uash or set aside the order of the inferior inferior court and do no more, but in e!ercise e!ercise of supervisory &urisdiction under Article 227, the High %ourt may not only uash or set aside the impugned impugned proceedings, proceedings, &udgment &udgment or order, order, but it may also ma0e such directions directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further further or afresh as commended to or guid guided ed by the the High High %our %ourt. t. In appr approp opri riate ate cases cases the the High High %our %ourt, t, whil whilee e!erc e!ercis isin ing g supervisory &urisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made.
