Article 226 | High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence or Interfere With Factual Findings in Certiorari Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
In a significant judgment defining the limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has reiterated that High Courts exercising certiorari jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence or reassess factual findings recorded by subordinate courts or tribunals. The Court emphasized that the writ of certiorari is supervisory in nature and is intended to correct jurisdictional errors, errors of law, or patent illegality—not to function as an appellate forum for re-evaluating evidence.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed an appeal challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that had interfered with factual findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in a civil dispute. The Supreme Court restored the appellate court’s findings, holding that the High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of its jurisdiction under Article 226.
The litigation arose from a suit for partition, which had been dismissed by the trial court after concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their rights. The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal after examining the pleadings and evidence on record. However, in one part of its judgment, it made observations regarding the genuineness of certain sale deeds. Aggrieved by those observations, a purchaser approached the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition, which resulted in the impugned findings being set aside.
The Supreme Court held that once the First Appellate Court, being fully competent to decide the appeal, had recorded findings after due appreciation of the evidence, such findings could not be interfered with in writ proceedings merely because another view of the evidence was possible. The Bench observed that the High Court had effectively acted as an appellate court by reassessing the evidence, which is impermissible in certiorari jurisdiction.
Reiterating long-settled principles governing writ jurisdiction, the Court observed that certiorari lies only where there is a jurisdictional error, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or patent illegality. It does not permit the High Court to review or reweigh the evidence upon which subordinate courts have based their conclusions. Findings of fact, once reached after appreciation of evidence by a competent court or tribunal, are ordinarily immune from interference under Article 226.
The Bench also found that the High Court had violated the principles of natural justice by setting aside findings that directly affected the rights of certain defendants without issuing notice to them or affording them an opportunity of hearing. Such an exercise, the Court held, could not be sustained in law because any judicial order affecting the rights of a party must be preceded by a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Supreme Court clarified that interference with factual findings is justified only in exceptional situations—for instance, where the findings are based on no evidence, where admissible material evidence has been wrongly excluded, inadmissible evidence has substantially influenced the decision, or where the conclusions are so perverse that they amount to a jurisdictional error. Mere disagreement with the appreciation of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court and reaffirmed the settled constitutional position that Article 226 confers a supervisory—not appellate—jurisdiction. The ruling serves as an important reminder that High Courts must exercise restraint while reviewing decisions of subordinate courts and tribunals, intervening only where there is a demonstrable jurisdictional defect or manifest error of law rather than undertaking a fresh evaluation of factual issues already adjudicated by competent judicial forums.
