0
While revising writ jurisdiction for UPSC, I keep seeing the statement that a High Court will ordinarily not entertain a writ petition when an effective alternative remedy is available.
Suppose a person challenges an administrative order, but the relevant statute already provides an appeal. Does that appeal remove the High Court’s jurisdiction, or is declining the petition a matter of judicial discretion?
The distinction I’m trying to understand
- Is the availability of an appeal enough, or does the effectiveness of that remedy matter?
- How would an alleged breach of natural justice or an order passed without jurisdiction affect the analysis?
- How should I distinguish this rule under Article 226 from access to the Supreme Court under Article 32?
I’m looking for a clear explanation of the alternative remedy rule that would help with both a prelims statement and a short mains answer, without treating every alleged illegality as an automatic exception.
