The Contours of Article 226: When Alternative Remedy Is Not a Bar

A rule of discretion, not of jurisdiction

The existence of an alternative statutory remedy has never operated as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. It is a self-imposed restraint that the writ court applies in the ordinary course, and departs from where the circumstances justify it.

The distinction matters in drafting. A petition that ignores the remedy invites dismissal at the threshold; one that identifies the remedy and pleads why it is inadequate places the exception squarely before the Court.

The recognised exceptions

Breach of natural justice, an order passed wholly without jurisdiction, the vires of a statute or subordinate legislation being under challenge, and enforcement of fundamental rights remain the settled categories in which the writ court will entertain a petition notwithstanding an appeal or revision.

To these may be added cases where the appellate authority is the very authority whose conduct is impugned, and matters where the statutory forum has ceased to function or the remedy has become illusory through delay.

How the exception is pleaded

Plead the exception as a fact, not as a conclusion. Set out the date of the impugned order, the remedy prescribed, and the specific feature of the case that takes it outside the ordinary rule. Annex the material that establishes it.