Supreme Court Defines Scope of Certiorari Writs: "Not an Appellate Review, but a Remedy for Jurisdictional Errors."

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, has clarified the scope and limitations of issuing writs of certiorari. The court emphasized that such writs are not meant for appellate review, but rather, they serve as remedies to address errors of jurisdiction and manifest errors of law evident on the face of the record.

The case in question involved a writ petition seeking the quashing of an order passed by a tribunal. The court's observations delved into the principles governing the issuance of certiorari writs and their purpose in correcting errors made by lower tribunals.

Justice Chandrachud highlighted, "A writ of certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess, or failure to exercise, and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality." He underscored that the writ cannot be used as a means to correct every error of fact or law made by lower tribunals.

The court categorically stated that certiorari should not be employed as an appellate review mechanism. The judgment emphasized that such writs cannot be used to replace the role of an appellate court in examining the correctness of decisions made within the jurisdiction of lower tribunals. Instead, it clarified that certiorari writs are intended to address jurisdictional errors and manifest errors of law that are evident on the face of the record.

Referencing several legal precedents, the court outlined that an error of law must be manifest or patent on the face of the record to be considered for correction through a writ of certiorari. It stressed that certiorari writs are not suitable for correcting mere formal or technical errors of law, and such errors should be self-evident without requiring lengthy or complex arguments.

Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. The court's judgment reiterates the fundamental principle that certiorari writs are not a tool for re-appreciating evidence or rectifying errors of fact or law that do not fall within the purview of jurisdictional errors.

The judgment reinforces the distinction between errors of fact and jurisdictional errors, making it clear that while certiorari writs can address the latter, they are not designed to address the former. This landmark decision provides much-needed clarity on the scope of certiorari writs and their role in the Indian legal framework.

Date of Decision: August 16, 2023

CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR.  vs BIKARTAN DAS & ORS.    

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/16-Aug-2023-Ayurvedic_Vs_Bikartan.pdf"]