Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India 2025 INSC 1337 - Art.226 -Writ Jurisdiction- Alternative Remedy -Limitation
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Exhaustion of a statutory remedy provided by an enactment before invoking the writ jurisdiction of a high court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be traced to one of several self imposed restrictions - Unless any of the exceptions [challenge to an act/order grounded on (i) breach of a Fundamental Right; (ii) violation of natural justice principles; (iii) lack of jurisdiction; and (iv) unconstitutionality of a statute] is satisfied, a writ court may refuse to entertain a writ petition- availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of a writ court -While deciding whether to entertain a petition under Article 226 bearing in mind the precedents in the field, a writ court ought to additionally notice the forum designated by the statute for the litigant to approach. This is necessary because the alternative forum that is provided by the statute has to be one which can dispense speedy and efficacious relief- If the statutorily designated alternative forum happens to be the high court itself whose jurisdiction under Article 226 is invoked and not any ordinary statutory functionary/tribunal, refusal to entertain the petition should be the rule and entertaining it an exception- if a remedy is available to a party before the high court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226, for, that would allow the machinery set up by the concerned statute to be bye-passed (Para 7- 10)
Constitution of India - Article 226 - There is no period of limitation for invoking the writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226, all that the courts insist is invocation of its jurisdiction with utmost expedition and, at any rate, within a “reasonable period”. What would constitute “reasonable period” cannot be put in a straight-jacket, and it must invariably depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Nonetheless, the period of limitation prescribed by an enactment for availing the alternative remedy provided thereunder in certain cases does provide indication as to what should be the “reasonable period” within which the writ jurisdiction has to be invoked.
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1337
- Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar
- Judgment date: November 12, 2025
Caselaws and Citations
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Md. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86.
- Titaghur Paper Mills v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433.
- Godrej Sarah Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 955.
- Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419.
- A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Customs Act, 1962: Sections 129A(1), 130, 130A.
- Limitation Act, 1963: Sections 4–24, and Section 29(2).
#SupremeCourt reiterates that if a remedy is available to a party before the High Court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised. https://t.co/4t7PPoIrVS pic.twitter.com/qnXYDPqoV3
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 20, 2025