This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Introduction
In Archana Mishra v. State of U.P. (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 143), decided on 27 March 2026, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a judicial order of a criminal court. The Court held that judicial orders of criminal courts cannot be challenged by a writ of certiorari under Article 226 and that the appropriate remedy lies exclusively under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Legal Question
The petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to challenge an order passed by a criminal court. The Court framed the issue as whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is maintainable against a judicial order of a criminal court, or whether the petitioner must invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.
The Court’s Analysis
Distinction Between Article 226 and Article 227
The Court drew a clear distinction between the two constitutional provisions:
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs — including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari — for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.” A writ of certiorari under Article 226 is typically used to quash orders of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies that act without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or in excess of their powers.
Article 227 vests the High Court with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. This supervisory jurisdiction is exercised to ensure that subordinate courts function within the bounds of their authority and that there is no failure of justice.
Judicial Orders Excluded from Article 226 Certiorari
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Neeta Singh (2024), T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954), and Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), the Court held:
- A writ of certiorari under Article 226 is directed against administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, not against courts exercising judicial functions
- Judicial orders of criminal courts are subject to the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, not its writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- The High Court is “disabled” from entertaining a petition under Article 226 when the challenge is to a judicial order of a criminal court
- Mixing up proceedings under Article 226 with Article 227 “would lead to anomalous results and is not permissible”
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Significance for Litigants
- Article 226 (certiorari) — appropriate against orders of administrative authorities, quasi-judicial bodies, and tribunals
- Article 227 (superintendence) — appropriate against judicial orders of subordinate courts (civil and criminal)
- Filing under the wrong provision results in dismissal at the threshold; a petition dismissed under Article 226 does not bar a fresh petition under Article 227 on the same facts
- Article 227 petitions are subject to different procedural requirements and a narrower standard of review than Article 226 writs
- Note: Where an Article 226 writ is sought against the executive (e.g., police inaction, personal liberty threats) rather than against a court order, Article 226 remains the correct provision — as seen in cases seeking protection for inter-caste couples: Right to Marry Person of Choice — Allahabad HC 2026 on Honour Killings and Personal Liberty
When to Use Article 226 vs. Article 227
| Scenario | Appropriate Remedy |
|---|---|
| Order of a government authority or executive body | Article 226 (writ) |
| Order of a quasi-judicial body (e.g., Revenue Board, Rent Tribunal) | Article 226 (certiorari) |
| Judicial order of a civil or criminal court | Article 227 (superintendence) |
| Violation of fundamental rights by any authority | Article 226 (writ) |
Useful Resources
- LiveLaw — Full Report of Archana Mishra v. State of U.P.
- Indian Kanoon — Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath
- Indian Kanoon — T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.