No Dilution of Time is Permissible Under Article 226

Source – Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences Sehore V. Union of India & Ors. has observed that no dilution of the time schedule with respect to medical courses, is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (COI) in absence of any justifiable reason.

Background

• Before the High Court of Delhi, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the COI by Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences challenging an order passed by the Union Government.
• In the order, the Union Government affirmed the order of Medical Assessment & Rating Board of National Medical Commission rejecting the varsity’s request for establishment of a new medical college for the academic year 2023-24 in absence of any application made by it.
• The Court rejected the petition.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that no dilution of the time schedule with respect to medical courses, which is mandatory and binding on all, is permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in absence of any justifiable reason.
• The Court said that sufficient time was available with the University to complete the process of online submission of application which was admittedly not done.
• The Court also noted that no explanation was offered by the varsity as to why such a recourse was not taken and that instead, the hard copy was submitted which was held to be not acceptable.

Legal Provisions

Article 226 of COI

• Article 226: It is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs.
  • Article 226(1): It states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose.
  • Article 226(2): States that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -
    • Located within its jurisdiction or
    • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arise either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction.
  • Article 226(3): It states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.
  • Article 226(4): Says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.
• Article 226 can be issued against any person or authority, including the government.

Difference Between Article 226 & Article 32

• Article 32 empowers the individuals to move to the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated.
• Unlike Article 32, Article 226 is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right.
• Article 32 can be suspended if the during an emergency, however, Article 226 cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
  • Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”.
• Article 226 is wider in its scope than Article 32 because the Supreme court under Article 32 can only issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, whereas the High Court under Article 226 enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights.
  • In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), it was held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), it was held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.

Writs available under Article 226 of COI

• Writ of Habeas Corpus:
  • It is a Latin phrase which means ‘to have a body or to produce a body’.
  • This is the most often used writ.
  • When a person is wrongfully held by the government, that person, or his family or friends, can file a writ of Habeas Corpus to have that person released.
  • In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980), it was held that a writ petition for habeas corpus can be filed not only for the prisoner’s improper or illegal detention but also for his protection from any sort of ill-treatment or discrimination by the authority responsible for his detention.
• Writ of Mandamus:
  • It is a Latin phrase that translates to ‘we command.’
  • Mandamus is a judicial command issued to all public authorities to perform public duty.
  • It is used to execute public duties by constitutional, statutory, non-statutory, universities, courts, and other bodies.
  • The only requirement for using this writ is that there should be a public duty.
• Writ of Certiorari:
  • It is a Latin phrase that means ‘to be informed.’
  • It is a command or order issued by the Superior Court to the inferior court.
  • It is issued when the inferior courts violate the principles of natural justice. The Superior Court can quash the order given by the inferior court, if it finds any error.
• Writ of Prohibition:
  • It simply means ‘to stop’.
  • This writ is issued against the inferior court (i.e., subordinate courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies) by the Superior Court.

• Writ of Quo warranto:
  • The term Quo warranto means ‘by what authority’.
  • It is issued against a private person by what authority he is holding the office on which he has no right. By this writ, the Court can control the public official appointment, and protect a citizen from being deprived of a public office to which he may be entitled.