Judicial orders by criminal courts cannot be challenged under Article 226; petitioners advised to seek remedy under Article 227
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Smt. Archana Mishra challenging orders passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow. The court reaffirmed that judicial orders of criminal courts are not amenable to challenge through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition, registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2026, sought the quashing of orders dated December 12, 2025, and February 21, 2026. These orders were passed in a longstanding criminal case, State v. Sahdev Singh and Others, which dates back to 1999. The legal contention arose from the petitioner's attempt to invoke Article 226 to obtain a writ of certiorari, challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, presiding over the case, emphasized the distinction between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Neeta Singh v. State of U.P., which clarified that judicial orders from criminal courts cannot be contested through Article 226. Instead, such challenges must be pursued under Article 227, which provides a different scope of jurisdiction.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Amrendra Nath Tripathi, argued that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction, invoking the precedent set by Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court's judgments have consistently held that judicial orders, whether from civil or criminal courts, are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, highlighting the lack of maintainability under the cited constitutional provision. However, the judgment allowed the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition under Article 227, which is the appropriate legal channel for such grievances.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary's stance on maintaining the procedural boundaries set by the Constitution, ensuring that challenges to judicial orders follow the correct legal pathways. The case underscores the importance of understanding the distinct applications of Articles 226 and 227 in the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Judicial orders passed by criminal courts are not amenable to challenge by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; they can only be challenged under Article 227 or other prescribed remedies.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Smt. Archana Mishra v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2872724
