Article 226: High Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence While Exercising Certiorari Jurisdiction, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate, and that a high court cannot reweigh evidence or interfere with factual findings of subordinate courts unless there is a jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Article 226 empowers every high court to issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as other legal rights.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi held that the Karnataka High Court exceeded the limited scope of its certiorari jurisdiction by setting aside factual findings of the first appellate court without adequate grounds.

Court also emphasised that the principle of audi alteram partem lies at the heart of procedural fairness, ensuring that no person is condemned or adversely affected without being given a fair hearing.

"Non-observance of natural justice causes prejudice to the party denied an opportunity to be heard, and such parties are necessary in writ proceedings affecting their rights," the Bench said.

Holding that the high court had decided the matter ex parte after dispensing with notice to parties whose rights were directly affected, the Supreme Court said the course adopted violated the principles of natural justice.

The appeal arose from the Karnataka High Court's February 22, 2023 order allowing a writ petition filed by Goparappa and setting aside certain findings recorded by the first appellate court.

Why did the Supreme Court interfere with the high court's order?

Court found that the high court had exercised its writ jurisdiction as if it were sitting in appeal over the first appellate court's findings.

The dispute originated from a partition suit in which Basamma (defendant no. 1) and subsequent purchasers contested the plaintiffs' claim over the suit schedule properties. While Basamma admitted her relationship with the plaintiffs' father, Basalingaiah, she contended that the properties were her self-acquired properties and that the plaintiffs had no share in them.

The trial court, by its judgment dated April 20, 2015, dismissed the suit for partition and separate possession. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any right over the properties, recognised Basamma as the owner, upheld her right to alienate the properties, and accepted the purchasers' possession.

On appeal, the first appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the properties were ancestral or family properties. However, it held that the sale deeds executed by Basamma in favour of the purchasers were invalid, while simultaneously recording that Basamma remained the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties.

Aggrieved by these findings, one of the purchasers, Goparappa (defendant no. 5), filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari. He argued that the findings regarding the sale deeds had been recorded without proper appreciation of the pleadings, issues and evidence.

The high court allowed the writ petition and set aside those findings.

Basamma and the other appellants challenged the high court's decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the high court had dispensed with notice to them despite the fact that the findings under challenge directly affected their ownership and property rights.

Can a High Court reappreciate evidence while exercising certiorari jurisdiction?

Answering this question in the negative, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principles governing certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Bench observed that while exercising such jurisdiction, the high court does not function as a court of appeal over findings of subordinate courts or tribunals, particularly findings of fact. It cannot review or reweigh evidence on which those findings are based. Such jurisdiction can be invoked only where there is an error of law, jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1963), Court noted that a writ of certiorari is meant only to correct jurisdictional errors and cannot be used for reappreciating evidence or substituting factual conclusions.

Applying these principles, the Bench held:

"We are of the considered opinion that the high court clearly transgressed the limited contours of the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while setting aside the findings recorded by the first appellate court."

Court noted that the high court had concluded that the appellate court's findings were unsupported by pleadings or evidence. However, a careful reading of the appellate judgment showed that it had independently examined the evidence, including the pleadings, mutation entries, sale deeds and the conduct of the parties regarding ownership and possession before recording its findings.

Once the first appellate court, which was fully competent to decide the appeal, had returned findings after considering the evidence on record, those findings could not be characterised as being without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said.

"Thus, in our considered opinion, the high court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not have set aside the findings returned," the Bench held.

Violation of natural justice

The Supreme Court also found that the findings under challenge directly affected the appellants' ownership, possession and other rights over the suit properties.

Despite this, the high court decided the writ petition without issuing notice to them.

"Despite this, the high court proceeded to decide the writ petition, ex parte, after dispensing with service of notice to the present appellants, which, in our considered opinion, was definitely not a correct or proper course to adopt," the Bench observed.

Court stressed that findings on ownership and possession necessarily affect the rights of the parties concerned, and therefore such parties must be heard before any adverse order is passed.

"In such a circumstance, the least expectation that a litigant is entitled to have from a court, much less a constitutional court, is that they would be heard before being condemned," the Bench said.

Holding that the high court's approach amounted to a clear violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem, Court observed that the appellants were not merely proper parties but necessary parties to the writ proceedings.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the high court's order and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

However, it clarified that its judgment should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the underlying property dispute, leaving the parties free to pursue any remedies available to them in accordance with law.

Case Title: Basamma & Anr Vs Goparappa & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: July 16, 2026