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 as one petition. However, in reality these two articles are
very different in their scope and application. The difference was well explained in the case of
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai
Article 226 gives the power to the High Courts to issue certain writs for enforcement of
fundamental rights or for any other purpose. This means that the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 is limited to the case s primarily of violation of fundamental rights of
individuals. A writ maybe issued against the State or in some cases privated individuals as
well.
Before coming to Article 227, one needs to understand the the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). Revision is a power under which the
higher courts keep the authority of the subordinate courts under check in cases of errors of
jurisdiction. Errors of jurisdiction can be of three types:
a) overstepping the jurisdiction;
b) exercising jurisdiction where not provided
c) refusing to exercise jurisdiction where present
Now, under Sec 115 of the CPC a revision petition maybe presented to the revisional court
(not necessarily the High Court), generally it is the court next in hierarchy, to seek
modification of the orders by the aggrieved party. When the court is sitting in revision then
the revisional can only correct the errors of jurisdiction and cannot substitute its own
understanding of facts and evidence and pass a completely new order. The jurisdiction is
limited to the extent of modification of orders so as to bring the subordinate courts within
their proper jurisdiction.
Once revision power is clear then we shall proceed to Article 227, which talks about the
general superintendence over subordinate courts. It includes administrative powers as well as
judicial powers in Article 227 (2) (a). Powers under article 227 are of very wide nature and

are wider than those provided under Section 115 CPC. While sitting in revision the High
Court can only modify the order of the subordinate court so as to correct the errors of
jurisdiction. However, powers under Article 227 are wider than those and shall be discussed
below.
Difference between Article 226 and 227. The confusion between Article 226 and 227 will
arise only in respect of writ of certiorari. Writ of certiorari can be issued under both the
articles and therefore, the question of differentiation is important.
On 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.
Therefore, there is difference in the manner how the high court can exercise its jurisdiction
and powers under both articles. While passing an order or writ of certiorari the High Court
can only quash or set aside the order of the inferior court and do no more, but in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court may not only quash or set aside the
impugned proceedings, judgment or order, but it may also make such directions as the facts
and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the inferior court or
tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to
or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising
supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned
decision, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made.