Supreme Court: Writing courts can reject reparation for technical violations to guarantee justice
Last Updated on February 13, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The judgment from the Supreme Court concerning Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The Supreme Court ruled that a writ court can refuse to take action against a clear illegality if doing so is necessary to deliver substantial justice.
In this context, the Court emphasized that while legality must be upheld, there are instances where strict adherence to legal norms might impede the overarching goal of substantial justice. The judgment highlighted that the High Courts have the discretion to determine when to exercise their writ jurisdiction based on the circumstances of each case.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the principle of ‘substantial justice’ should prevail over procedural technicalities, thereby reinforcing the judicial system’s commitment to favoring justice over rigid legal requirements. It recognized that there may be scenarios where rectifying an illegality could lead to more harm than good, thus justifying the courts’ reluctance to intervene.
This ruling serves as a reminder that the judiciary’s role extends beyond merely rectifying errors; it involves considering the broader implications of its decisions on justice delivery. The article ultimately underscores the balance between legality and justice, emphasizing the flexibility and responsibility of the courts in upholding the spirit of the law while ensuring that justice is accessible and equitable.
This judgment can significantly influence how High Courts approach their constitutional mandate, especially in cases where strict adherence to legal procedures might not serve the interests of justice.
