Supreme Court Prohibits High Courts From Reassessing Trial Evidence Under Article 227

The Supreme Court clarified the limits of Article 227 of the Constitution, which grants High Courts the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals. The court held that High Courts must not substitute their own factual conclusions for those of the trial court by re-evaluating evidence already on record. This supervisory power is intended to ensure lower courts remain within the bounds of their legal authority.

The ruling specifies that Article 227 petitions are not a substitute for a statutory appeal. Intervention is permissible only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error that results in a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that re-examining the merits of a factual decision exceeds the scope of supervisory jurisdiction, as the High Court does not sit as a court of fact in these proceedings.

• Article 227 provides High Courts with superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction.
• High Courts are barred from re-evaluating evidence already weighed by the trial court.
• Intervention is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or manifest injustice.

Glossary

Article 227: A constitutional provision giving High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in their jurisdiction.

Supervisory Jurisdiction: The authority of a higher court to oversee lower courts to ensure they act within their legal mandates.