Scope of Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts under A.226 of Constitution of India

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts under A.226 of Constitution of India

In case of Leelavathi v. State of Karnataka [2025] GCtR 1624 (SC) it was held that "where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals."

Tribunals are empowered even to deal with constitutional questions and can also examine the vires of statutory legislation.

It was held that in service matters related to State Government employment, the proper remedy is one provided under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 

This decision now makes the position clear that approaching High Courts in every service matter related to government employees may not be the best approach and in many cases, it may be the worst approach being contrary to Leelavathi finding. Statutory remedies have to be respected and invoking A.226 because it looks glamorous to do so will only add to the backlog of cases that Hon'ble HC has. One can easily understand the situation by looking at the number of cases some Hon'ble High Courts where petitions under A.226 have been filed in service matters directly without invoking the statutory remedies.  Maybe, the backlog of cases in Hon'ble High Courts might reduce if people start invoking remedies in services matters or even in other matters by looking at the statutes than just invoking the concepts of "natural justice", "fundamental rights' violation", or "law being ultra vires the Act/Constitution".