The Constitution of India
Article 227
Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may —
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) 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 practising 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.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Why this exists
The framers wanted to preserve the historic supervisory role that High Courts had exercised over subordinate courts even before independence, drawn from the Government of India Act, 1935. As independent India created many specialized tribunals outside the ordinary court hierarchy, Article 227 was designed to ensure that even these tribunals remained accountable to judicial oversight, preventing arbitrary or lawless functioning while keeping High Courts from turning into a routine appellate forum for every case.
How courts read it
In Waryam Singh v. Amar Nath (1954), the Supreme Court held that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is not just administrative but also judicial, meant to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority, though it should be used sparingly and not as an appeal in disguise. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Court confirmed that tribunals are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 alongside writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Later, in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) and then Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), the Court clarified the distinction between Article 226 (writ of certiorari) and Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction), holding that certiorari does not lie against orders of civil courts, but Article 227's supervisory power does apply, though it must be exercised only in cases of grave error or jurisdictional excess, not for correcting mere errors of fact or law.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 227 lets the High Court act as a regular appeals court for any decision it dislikes.
Fact: Courts have held that this power is meant only for serious jurisdictional errors or gross illegality, not to re-examine facts or normal legal mistakes. - Myth: Article 227 and Article 226 are exactly the same power.
Fact: The Supreme Court has clarified they are distinct: Article 226 includes issuing specific writs like certiorari, while Article 227 is a supervisory power with different limits, especially regarding orders of civil courts. - Myth: This power covers military courts too.
Fact: Clause (4) specifically excludes courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces from this supervisory power.