The Allahabad High Court has definitively closed the door on using Article 226 writ petitions to challenge judicial orders issued by criminal courts, reaffirming a strict separation between extraordinary writ jurisdiction and appellate or revisional remedies. This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s recent clarification in Neeta Singh v. State of U.P., reinforcing procedural discipline in constitutional litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner sought quashing of two orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, in Criminal Case No. 3894 of 1999 (State v. Sahdev Singh and Ors.). The impugned orders pertained to proceedings under the Customs Act, likely involving seizure, assessment, or penalty imposition. The petitioner contended that these orders were legally unsustainable and sought their quashing through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Key Facts
- The criminal case was instituted in 1999 and remained pending for over two decades.
- The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate passed two orders: one on 12.12.2025 and another on 21.02.2026.
- The petitioner did not file an appeal or revision against these orders within the statutory time limits.
- Instead, on 20.02.2026, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
- The petitioner did not allege any violation of fundamental rights or lack of jurisdiction arising from extraneous circumstances.
Procedural History
- 1999: Criminal Case No. 3894 filed before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow.
- 12.12.2025: First impugned order passed by the Magistrate.
- 21.02.2026: Second impugned order passed by the Magistrate.
- 20.02.2026: Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2026 filed under Article 226 before the Allahabad High Court.
- 26.03.2026: Hearing before Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Amrendra Nath Tripathi and counsel Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, argued that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction. They relied on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423, particularly paragraph 9, which references T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440), to contend that certiorari under Article 226 is available where a court acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it.
For the Respondent/State
The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Mohd. Asif Khan, raised a preliminary objection that judicial orders of criminal courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. They relied on Neeta Singh v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761), which explicitly held that judicial orders, whether from civil or criminal courts, cannot be challenged via Article 226.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026, and a direction to the Magistrate to set aside the proceedings or grant appropriate relief.
The Legal Issue
Can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution be maintained to quash judicial orders passed by a criminal court, even if the petitioner alleges lack of jurisdiction?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath to argue that certiorari under Article 226 lies when a court acts without jurisdiction, citing T.C. Basappa as authority. They contended that the Magistrate’s orders were void ab initio due to procedural irregularities or lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, thereby invoking the exception recognized in Radhey Shyam. They further argued that the remedy of appeal or revision was inadequate or delayed, justifying extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that Neeta Singh unequivocally overruled any notion that judicial orders of criminal courts are subject to Article 226. The State emphasized that the Supreme Court in Neeta Singh held that judicial orders, regardless of the forum, are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because they do not violate fundamental rights or statutory rights in a manner warranting certiorari. The State stressed that the correct remedy lies under Article 227 or through statutory appeals and revisions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on the scope of Article 226. It noted that while Radhey Shyam had once suggested a narrow exception for jurisdictional errors, the subsequent decision in Neeta Singh clarified that this exception does not extend to judicial orders of criminal courts.
"Although Radhey Shyam (supra) dealt with judicial orders passed by civil courts, there cannot be a different standard for judicial orders passed by criminal courts. If a judicial order passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226."
The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Neeta Singh had explicitly disapproved of the reasoning in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and reaffirmed the principle that judicial orders are not subject to certiorari under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the constitutional design provides specific appellate and revisional remedies for challenging judicial orders, and these must be exhausted before resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s reliance on T.C. Basappa was misplaced, as that case was cited in Radhey Shyam but not adopted as binding precedent. The Supreme Court in Neeta Singh had clearly stated that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct and exclusive for correcting errors of jurisdiction or procedure in judicial orders.
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s failure to avail statutory remedies - such as appeal or revision under the Customs Act or CrPC - rendered the writ petition an abuse of process. The invocation of Article 226 to challenge a judicial order, even on grounds of jurisdictional error, is now foreclosed by binding precedent.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage. The Court held that judicial orders passed by criminal courts cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution within four weeks from the date of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Orders Are Beyond Article 226
- Practitioners must no longer file writ petitions under Article 226 to challenge any judicial order, whether from civil, criminal, or quasi-judicial tribunals.
- Even allegations of lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, or error apparent on record must be raised through statutory appeals, revisions, or Article 227 petitions.
- Filing an Article 226 petition against a judicial order will result in immediate dismissal at the admission stage.
Article 227 Is the Exclusive Remedy
- All challenges to judicial orders must now be channeled exclusively through Article 227 petitions.
- Article 227 petitions must be filed within the period of limitation applicable to revision petitions under the relevant statute or CrPC.
- Courts will no longer entertain Article 226 petitions as a substitute for appellate remedies, even if delay or hardship is alleged.
Procedural Discipline Is Mandatory
- Lawyers must carefully assess the nature of the impugned order before filing any constitutional remedy.
- If the order is judicial in nature, the first step is to determine whether an appeal or revision is available under the statute.
- Failure to exhaust statutory remedies will result in dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of maintainability, not merits.
