Article 226 of the Constitution of India vests in every High Court the power to issue directions, orders, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to any person or authority, including the government. This jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court's Article 32 jurisdiction in two respects: it covers violations of legal rights (not just fundamental rights), and it extends to all territory within the High Court's jurisdiction. Article 227 gives the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within its territory.
Types of writs: Habeas corpus ("you shall have the body") is issued to secure release of a person detained unlawfully — it is the most urgent writ and must be heard immediately. Mandamus ("we command") directs a public authority to perform a duty imposed by law. Certiorari is issued to quash a decision of a lower court, tribunal, or authority that acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice principles. Prohibition prevents a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction. Quo warranto calls upon a person to show by what authority they hold a public office.
The alternative remedy bar: A significant limitation on writ jurisdiction is the doctrine of alternative remedy. High Courts generally decline to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction where the petitioner has an adequate, efficacious, and equally convenient alternative remedy available. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998), the Supreme Court laid down exceptions: where the action of the authority is wholly without jurisdiction; where there is a violation of principles of natural justice; where the impugned order or statute is unconstitutional; or where the vires of the statute is under challenge.
Article 227 — supervisory jurisdiction: Unlike Article 226, Article 227 cannot be used to substitute the High Court's judgment for that of the lower court on questions of fact. It is limited to ensuring that inferior courts remain within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010), the Supreme Court held that Article 227 jurisdiction is not appellate and should be sparingly used to correct jurisdictional errors only.
Practice before the Rajasthan High Court: Writ petitions at the Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) are filed in the Registry with a vakalatnama, the petition, an affidavit in support, and annexures. Urgent matters can be mentioned before the roster Bench for early listing. Courts routinely issue stay orders on impugned decisions pending hearing, making Article 226 an effective tool for interim relief in service, revenue, and regulatory matters.