Article 227 of the COI

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, in Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr. (2026), declined to interfere with pending tenancy proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that supervisory jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists, and that factual questions such as the timing of a landlord-tenant relationship must be decided by the competent Tenancy Tribunal. 

What was the Background of Sanaka Murali v.  Uddangi  Ramanjaneyulu  (2026) Case? 

• A tenant had instituted proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, seeking a declaration that he was the cultivating tenant of certain agricultural land, along with a permanent injunction against the landlord. An interim injunction had also been granted in his favour. 
• The petitioner, a third party claiming independent rights over the disputed land, was not a party to these tenancy proceedings. 
• The petitioner challenged the very numbering and maintainability of the tenancy case, contending that since the 1956 Act had been repealed by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Repeal Act, 2022, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under the repealed enactment. 
• He accordingly sought to have the tenancy proceedings set aside by invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
• The respondents opposed the revision on the ground that the petitioner, not being a party to the proceedings, lacked locus to invoke Article 227, and that he ought first to seek impleadment before the Tribunal and thereafter avail remedies under the CPC, including an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rather than approach the High Court directly. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction: The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily cannot be invoked where an effective alternative remedy, such as Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is available to the parties. 
• On self-imposed restraint: The Court observed that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, is not meant to displace a specific statutory remedy or provision of law and become a substitute for the court or tribunal below; it is a legally sound exercise of discretion for the High Court to insist that the aggrieved party first take recourse to the statutory remedy available. 
• On the effect of the repeal: The Court noted that although the Tenancy Act stood repealed, the repeal clause preserved the previous operation of the Act and actions already taken under it. 
• On the factual nature of the dispute: The Court held that whether the landlord-tenant relationship arose before or after the repeal required examination of disputed facts, including the nature and commencement of the lease, and that such factual questions could only be adjudicated by the Tenancy Tribunal and not in proceedings under Article 227. 
• On relief granted: The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Tribunal in accordance with law, and clarified that the Tribunal should decide any such applications independently, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations. 

What is Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 

• Article 227 of the COI provides for the power of the High Court of Superintendence.  
• Every High Court has supervisory power over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.  
• The High Court can:  
  • Request reports from lower courts  
  • Make rules and create forms to regulate how these courts operate  
  • Decide how records and accounts should be kept by court officers  
• The High Court can also establish fee schedules for court officials, attorneys, advocates, and pleaders who work in these courts.  
• Any rules, forms, or fee schedules created by the High Court:  
  • Must not conflict with existing laws  
  • Need the Governor's approval before implementation  
• This supervisory power does not extend to military courts or tribunals established under laws related to the Armed Forces.  
• In simple terms, Article 227 gives High Courts the authority to oversee and regulate the functioning of all lower courts in their region, except for military courts.