Principles for Exercise of Article 227 Jurisdiction

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. v. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors. (2026), set aside a High Court order that had reduced the compensation amount fixed by the executing court, holding that the High Court had transgressed the narrow limits of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 

• The Court reiterated that a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot re-examine the merits of a case or substitute its own view for a reasonable finding of the subordinate court, and that such jurisdiction is strictly confined to correcting unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction, or unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

What was the Background of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. v. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• In 2007, a compromise was arrived at between Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (NICE) and landowners in Bengaluru, whereby NICE had acquired a portion of their land for a road project. 
• Under the terms of the compromise, NICE was obligated to either provide alternate land to the affected landowners or pay compensation calculated on the basis of the government guideline value. 
• NICE failed to provide any alternate land, whereupon the landowners approached the executing court for enforcement of the compromise and payment of compensation. 
• The executing court, upon due consideration, fixed the compensation at ₹1,000 per sq. ft. 
• NICE challenged this determination before the High Court by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
• The High Court, exercising its powers under Article 227, reduced the compensation to ₹500 per sq. ft., thereby substituting its own assessment for that of the executing court. 
• Aggrieved by this reduction, NICE preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Nature and Scope of Article 227 Jurisdiction: The Court held that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction not vested in the court or tribunal, a gross abuse of jurisdiction, or an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction that is duly vested. 
• On the Distinction between Supervisory and Appellate Jurisdiction: The Court emphasised that the High Court, while acting under Article 227, cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment for that of the subordinate court. It is not open to the High Court to correct an error that is not apparent on the face of the record. 
• On Re-appreciation of Evidence: The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction does not permit the High Court to reappreciate or reweigh the evidence or facts on which the challenged determination is based. Such jurisdiction is not meant to correct every error of fact or legal flaw where the final finding is otherwise justified or capable of being supported. 
• On the Limits of Interference: The Court held that a High Court cannot replace a reasonable decision of a subordinate court with its own view merely because it disagrees with the conclusion. By adopting an alternative view to that taken by the executing court, the High Court travels beyond the narrow and circumscribed limits of scrutiny permissible under Article 227. 
• On the Facts of the Present Case: The Court found that the executing court had fixed the compensation at ₹1,000 per sq. ft. through a reasoned determination, and that no jurisdictional error had been committed. The High Court, by re-determining the compensation amount and reducing it to ₹500 per sq. ft., had effectively acted as an appellate court and modified the executing court's findings, which was impermissible under Article 227. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the determination of the executing court. The appeal was allowed.

What is Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 

• This Article is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.  
• It states that-  
  • Clause (1) states that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.  
  • Clause (2) states that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may—  
    • Call for returns from such courts.  
    • Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts.  
    • Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.  
  • Clause (3) states that the High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein.  
  • Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed, or tables settled under clause (2), or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.  
  • Clause (4) states that nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court in power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.