Which among the following statements regarding the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not correct?

1. Integrated Judicial System in India (basic)

Welcome to your first step in mastering the Indian Judiciary! To understand how High Courts function, we must first look at the unique architecture of the Indian legal system. Unlike many federal countries (like the USA) where there is a "double system" of courts—one for federal laws and another for state laws—India has adopted a single integrated judicial system. This means the entire judiciary is organized like a pyramid, functioning as one unified entity to maintain the rule of law across the nation.

At the apex of this pyramid stands the Supreme Court, which is the highest court of appeal and the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. Directly below it are the High Courts, which serve as the highest judicial authority within a State. Below the High Courts, we find a hierarchy of subordinate courts, such as District Courts and other lower judicial bodies M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p. 30. The most critical feature of this integration is that every court in this hierarchy has the power to enforce both Central (Union) laws and State laws. There is no "division of labor" where a High Court only looks at state matters; it is a vital part of the national legal fabric.

This structure ensures uniformity in the administration of justice. Whether a law is passed by the Parliament in Delhi or a State Legislature in Chennai, it is interpreted and enforced by this same chain of courts. Historically, this system traces back to the British era, beginning with the establishment of High Courts in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1862, eventually evolving into the post-independence structure we see today M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p. 353.

Feature	Indian Judicial System (Integrated)	USA Judicial System (Dual)
Structure	Single hierarchy (Pyramid)	Double system (Separate Federal & State courts)
Law Enforcement	All courts enforce both Central and State laws	Federal courts enforce federal laws; State courts enforce state laws
Authority	Supreme Court is the head of all courts	State courts are not strictly subordinate to the Federal Supreme Court on state law matters

Sources: M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.353; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Federal System, p.140; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Organisation of the Judiciary in General, p.335

2. Constitutional Framework of High Courts (basic)

To understand the High Court, we must first look at its constitutional identity. Unlike a federal system where state courts are entirely separate, India has an integrated judicial system. The High Court stands at the head of a State's judicial administration, but it functions under the overall hierarchy of the Supreme Court. According to Article 214, there shall be a High Court for each state; however, Article 231 gives Parliament the flexibility to establish a common High Court for two or more states or even for states and a Union Territory Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.359.

The internal composition of these courts is governed by Article 216. Every High Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may from time to time deem necessary to appoint. This is a unique feature: unlike the Supreme Court, where the maximum number of judges is specified by Parliament, the strength of a High Court is flexible and decided by the executive based on the workload Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, World Constitutions, p.701.

One of the most vital aspects of the High Court's framework is its status as a 'Court of Record' under Article 215. This carries two profound meanings:

• Evidentiary Value: All its decisions and proceedings are recorded for perpetual memory. These records are admitted as legal precedents and cannot be questioned when produced before subordinate courts.
• Contempt Power: The High Court has the inherent power to punish for contempt of itself, whether civil or criminal, ensuring its authority is respected Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.360.

Finally, the constitutional framework provides the High Court with the powerful 'shield' of Article 226. This article empowers the court to issue writs (like Habeas Corpus or Mandamus) not just for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, but for 'any other purpose' (legal rights) as well. This actually makes the High Court's writ jurisdiction broader in scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.359; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.360; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, World Constitutions, p.701

3. Understanding the Five Types of Writs (intermediate)

In the realm of constitutional remedies, writs act as powerful instruments issued by the judiciary to protect the rights of citizens and ensure that authorities act within their legal bounds. Under Article 226, High Courts possess the authority to issue five specific types of writs. A unique feature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction is its breadth: while the Supreme Court (under Article 32) can only issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights, the High Court can issue them for Fundamental Rights and for "any other purpose," such as the enforcement of ordinary legal rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8, p. 98.

Let’s break down the five writs by their core function:

• Habeas Corpus: Literally meaning "to have the body," it is an order to produce a person who has been detained, allowing the court to examine the legality of the detention. It is the primary safeguard of individual liberty.
• Mandamus: Meaning "we command," this is issued to a public official or body that has failed to perform a mandatory duty, ordering them to resume their work.
• Quo Warranto: Meaning "by what authority," the court uses this to inquire into the legality of a person's claim to a public office. If the claim is found to be baseless, the person is ousted from that office Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.159.

The final two writs, Prohibition and Certiorari, are often confused because both are directed at lower courts or quasi-judicial bodies to correct jurisdictional errors. However, they operate at different stages of a legal proceeding:

Feature	Prohibition	Certiorari
Meaning	To forbid.	To be certified/informed.
Nature	Preventive (stops an error).	Curative (corrects an error).
Timing	Issued during the pendency of proceedings to prevent an ultra vires order.	Issued after the order is passed to quash the illegal decision.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.158

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights, p.98; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.158; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.159

4. Article 32: The Right to Constitutional Remedies (intermediate)

Imagine you have a beautifully written insurance policy, but no way to actually file a claim when an accident happens. In the Indian Constitution, Article 32 is that claim process—it is the 'Right to Constitutional Remedies.' Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously called this Article the 'very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it' because it makes the Fundamental Rights (Part III) real and enforceable. Without a remedy, a right is merely a 'pious wish.' Under Article 32, the Supreme Court is constituted as the defender and guarantor of fundamental rights, meaning you can approach the highest court directly if your rights are violated Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99. However, in our study of High Courts, we must understand that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 is original but not exclusive. It is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226. This means if your fundamental rights are breached, you have two doors to knock on: the Supreme Court (Art 32) or the High Court (Art 226). While Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right—making it mandatory for the SC to hear the case—Article 226 is a constitutional power given to High Courts that is technically discretionary Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98. A fascinating distinction lies in the scope of these powers. While the Supreme Court can only issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, High Courts have a wider reach. They can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for 'any other purpose,' such as the enforcement of ordinary legal rights.

Feature	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Court)
Scope	Fundamental Rights (Part III) only.	Fundamental Rights + Legal Rights ('any other purpose').
Nature of Right	It is itself a Fundamental Right; SC cannot refuse it.	It is a discretionary remedy; HC may refuse to exercise it.
Territorial Jurisdiction	Throughout the territory of India.	Within the state or where the cause of action arises.

Even though Article 32 gives you the right to go straight to the Supreme Court, the Court has often held that if a remedy is available at the High Court level, the petitioner should ideally approach the High Court first. This is not a strict rule of law, but a rule of policy and convenience to manage the judicial workload Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE SUPREME COURT, p.348.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98-99; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE SUPREME COURT, p.348

5. Expansion of Powers: 'For Any Other Purpose' (intermediate)

Welcome back! Now that we understand the basics of the High Court's structure, let’s dive into one of its most powerful features: the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226. While both the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to issue writs like Habeas Corpus or Mandamus, there is a fascinating nuance that actually makes the High Court's reach technically "wider" than that of the Supreme Court.

Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). However, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue these writs not just for Fundamental Rights, but also 'for any other purpose' Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.358. This specific phrase is the key to their expanded power. It means that if your ordinary legal rights—such as a right granted by a specific law (statutory right) or a constitutional right that isn't a Fundamental Right—are violated, you can approach the High Court for a remedy.

To help you visualize this distinction, look at the comparison below:

Feature	Supreme Court (Art. 32)	High Court (Art. 226)
Scope of Rights	Narrower: Only Fundamental Rights.	Wider: Fundamental Rights + "Any other purpose" (Legal Rights).
Territorial Reach	Wider: Throughout India.	Narrower: Within its state/territorial jurisdiction.
Nature of Power	Mandatory (as Art. 32 is itself a FR).	Discretionary.

It is important to remember that this jurisdiction is concurrent. This means if your Fundamental Rights are hit, you don't have to go to the High Court first; you can go straight to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court usually encourages citizens to approach the High Court first Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.98. Finally, in the landmark L. Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Court ruled that this power of judicial review and writ jurisdiction is a part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution, meaning Parliament cannot take it away even through a constitutional amendment Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.358.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.358; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.98

6. Territorial Jurisdiction and Limitations (exam-level)

When we talk about the power of a High Court, we are looking at a unique blend of expansive scope but defined geography. Under Article 226, a High Court is empowered to issue five types of writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo-warranto. While this mirrors the Supreme Court's power under Article 32, there is a fundamental difference in their reach. The Supreme Court can only issue these writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, but a High Court can issue them for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights 'and for any other purpose'—which refers to the enforcement of ordinary legal rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358. This actually makes the High Court's writ jurisdiction broader in scope than that of the Supreme Court.

However, this broad power is physically limited by Territorial Jurisdiction. Generally, a High Court can issue writs against any person, authority, or government that is located within its territorial boundaries. It is important to note that the Parliament holds the authority to extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to any Union Territory or exclude it from one Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.353. For instance, while most UTs are attached to the High Court of a neighboring state, Delhi is unique in having its own separate High Court since 1966.

Feature	Supreme Court (Art. 32)	High Court (Art. 226)
Purpose	Fundamental Rights only	Fundamental Rights + Legal Rights
Territory	Whole of India	Respective State/UT only
Nature	Mandatory (it is a Fundamental Right)	Discretionary (may refuse to exercise)

A vital procedural nuance is that the High Court’s jurisdiction is concurrent with the Supreme Court. This means an aggrieved citizen can choose to go to either court directly for a violation of Fundamental Rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98. However, Article 226(4) explicitly states that the power of the High Court is not in derogation of the Supreme Court's powers; rather, they exist side-by-side to ensure the protection of the citizen's rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.353; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99

7. The Principle of Non-Derogation (exam-level)

In the architecture of the Indian Constitution, the Principle of Non-Derogation acts as a vital bridge between the powers of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Simply put, 'derogation' means to detract from or take away authority. Therefore, the principle of non-derogation ensures that while High Courts are given vast powers to protect rights, this does not in any way diminish or override the Supreme Court's status as the ultimate protector of the Constitution. This is explicitly anchored in Article 226(4), which clarifies that the power of a High Court to issue writs is not in derogation of the Supreme Court's power under Article 32 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8, p.98.

This creates a system of Concurrent Jurisdiction. If your Fundamental Rights are violated, you have the choice to approach either the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32. The existence of the High Court's power doesn't mean the Supreme Court loses its duty; rather, both coexist. However, there is a functional nuance: while the Supreme Court's power under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right (making it mandatory for the SC to hear the case), the High Court’s power under Article 226 is discretionary Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8, p.99. Despite this difference, the principle ensures that the legal remedy remains robust across both levels of the judiciary.

To understand the breadth of this relationship, we can compare how these powers interact:

Feature	Supreme Court (Art. 32)	High Court (Art. 226)
Scope	Only Fundamental Rights.	Fundamental Rights + "Any other purpose" (Legal Rights).
Nature of Power	A Fundamental Right in itself.	A Constitutional Power (Discretionary).
Relationship	Guarantor and Defender of FRs.	Non-derogatory; works alongside Art. 32.

Essentially, the Principle of Non-Derogation serves as a safeguard for the citizen. It prevents a scenario where a state-level judicial power could be interpreted as a reason to exclude the highest court of the land. It reinforces the Supreme Court’s role as the defender and guarantor of Fundamental Rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8, p.99, ensuring that even as High Courts handle a massive volume of constitutional litigation, the "original" jurisdiction of the Supreme Court remains untouched and supreme.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights, p.98-99

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Having mastered the individual building blocks of Writ Jurisdiction, you can now see how the Constitution of India balances the powers between the higher judiciary. This question requires you to synthesize your knowledge of Article 32 and Article 226. While you have learned that the High Court’s jurisdiction is functionally 'wider' than the Supreme Court's because it covers both Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Legal Rights (the 'any other purpose' clause), the critical nuance here is the legal relationship between the two courts. As highlighted in Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth, 'wider' reach does not translate to 'superior' authority; the two powers operate concurrently.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must focus on the term 'derogate' in Option (C). In a legal context, to derogate means to diminish, repeal, or take away the authority of something. Article 226(4) explicitly states that the power conferred on a High Court shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32. Therefore, Option (C) is the correct answer because it makes a false claim; the High Court's power is designed to coexist with, not override or diminish, the Supreme Court's role as the guarantor and defender of Fundamental Rights.

UPSC often uses the other options as 'distractors' to see if you can distinguish between breadth and hierarchy. Options (A) and (D) are standard procedural facts regarding the five types of writs and territorial jurisdiction. Option (B) is the most common trap; students often forget that the High Court actually has a broader scope than the Supreme Court because it can issue writs for 'any other purpose' (legal rights). The examiner is testing whether you can distinguish between the High Court's extensive functional reach and its subordinate constitutional position regarding the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.