Article 226 Writ Won't Lie Against Criminal Court Orders: Allahabad High Court Reiterates Settled Law, Directs Petitioner To Article 227

"A Judicial Order Passed By A Criminal Court Cannot Also Be Challenged In A Writ Petition Under Article 226", Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has firmly reiterated that judicial orders passed by criminal courts are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissing a writ petition at the admission stage itself and directing the petitioner to seek remedy under Article 227 instead.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, dealing with a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by Smt. Archana Mishra seeking quashing of orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in a criminal case dating back to 1999, held that the High Court stood "disabled" from entertaining such a petition in light of settled Supreme Court precedent.

The petitioner had approached the Lucknow Bench under Article 226 seeking quashing of two orders passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 3894 of 1999 (State v. Sahdev Singh and Ors.). The State raised a preliminary objection to maintainability at the threshold itself, contending that judicial orders of criminal courts simply cannot be challenged through a writ of certiorari under Article 226.

Can A Writ Of Certiorari Lie Against A Criminal Court's Judicial Order?

The petitioner's senior counsel, Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, contested the State's objection by placing reliance on a passage from the Supreme Court's decision in Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Chhabi Nath and Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 423. He argued that certiorari would lie where an order has been passed without jurisdiction, citing the proposition that "when the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the existence of some collateral fact, it is well settled that the court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact give it jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess."

The Court, however, examined this contention closely and found it to be based on a misreading of Radhey Shyam.

Justice Vidyarthi noted that the passage relied upon by the petitioner's counsel was in fact extracted from an older judgment — T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 — which had merely been quoted in Radhey Shyam but had not been followed or approved by the Supreme Court therein.

"The aforesaid passage relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been taken from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, which has been quoted in para-10 of the judgment in Radhey Shyam. However, this has not been followed or approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam."

The Court pointed out that in Radhey Shyam, the Supreme Court had in fact concluded the opposite — that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, and that jurisdiction under Article 227 is entirely distinct.

The Governing Law: Neeta Singh

The Court then turned to the Supreme Court's recent authoritative pronouncement in Neeta Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761, which had directly settled the question for criminal courts as well.

The Supreme Court had categorically held in Neeta Singh that: "Although Radhey Shyam dealt with judicial orders passed by civil courts, there cannot be a different standard for judicial orders passed by criminal courts. If a judicial order passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226."

The Court in Neeta Singh had also explained the constitutional rationale underlying this rule — that judicial orders cannot legitimately be said to have been passed in breach of a fundamental right or a constitutionally conferred right, which is the very premise for invocation of Article 226's high prerogative writ jurisdiction. The law provides separate and specific fora for challenging judicial orders through appeals, revisions, and Article 227, and those forums must be approached.

"High Courts Stand Disabled"

Accepting the State's preliminary objection in full, Justice Vidyarthi held: "The legal position has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is no doubt that after the judgment rendered in Neeta Singh, the High Courts stand disabled from entertaining a writ petition seeking issuance of writ of certiorari and thereby examining the validity of a judicial order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage itself, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Date of Decision: March 26, 2026