SC Says HCs Shouldn’t Hear Cases Meant for Tribunals

Supreme Court Clarifies: High Courts Should Not Entertain Writ Petitions in Matters Belonging to Tribunals

Apex Court stresses that tribunals are the proper forum for specialized disputes

High Courts reminded to use Article 226 powers only in rare and exceptional cases

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 17, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has once again underlined the limits of the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. A bench led by Justices B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta ruled that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions in cases where specialized tribunals have been created by law to deal with such disputes.

The judgment came in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Others, where the Telangana High Court had intervened in a matter that was already within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, stating that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction.

Why Article 226 Exists

Article 226 of the Constitution gives High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.” This makes it one of the widest constitutional powers available to the judiciary.

However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this power must be used sparingly and cautiously. When Parliament has created special tribunals—such as the Debt Recovery Tribunal, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), or Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)—citizens are expected to approach these bodies first.

The idea is that tribunals are specialized forums with expertise in particular areas of law, and allowing High Courts to bypass them would defeat the purpose of creating such institutions.

The Case Before the Court

In this case, a borrower had taken a loan from UCO Bank and mortgaged properties as collateral. When the borrower defaulted, the bank-initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Instead of contesting the matter before the tribunal, the borrower approached the Telangana High Court under Article 226, challenging the bank’s actions. The High Court entertained the writ petition and passed orders in favor of the borrower.

The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court should not have interfered when a special remedy before the DRT was already available.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court agreed with the bank and made several important observations:

Tribunal jurisdiction must be respected: When a statute provides for a tribunal to decide disputes, parties should not bypass it by going directly to the High Court.
Article 226 is not an alternative remedy: The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary and should not be used as a substitute for statutory remedies.
Exceptions exist: High Courts may still intervene under Article 226 in cases of violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or breach of natural justice.
Judicial discipline is essential: High Courts must exercise restraint and avoid interfering in matters where tribunals are competent to decide.

The bench emphasized that while Article 226 remains a powerful tool to protect citizens, it should not be misused to short-circuit the legal process.

Past Precedents

This ruling is consistent with earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, including:

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) – where the Court upheld the power of judicial review but also stressed that tribunals are the first forum of approach.
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon (2010) – where the Court cautioned High Courts against interfering in recovery proceedings when statutory remedies exist.
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) – where the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass specialized forums.

By reaffirming these principles, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that judicial discipline and respect for statutory forums are crucial for the smooth functioning of the justice system.

Why This Matters

The ruling has wide implications for both litigants and the judiciary:

For litigants: It means that parties must first approach the appropriate tribunal before knocking on the doors of the High Court.
For High Courts: It serves as a reminder to avoid unnecessary interference in matters where tribunals have clear jurisdiction.
For the justice system: It helps reduce the burden on High Courts, ensuring that they focus on cases that truly require constitutional intervention.

Legal experts say this ruling will help streamline litigation and prevent misuse of Article 226 as a shortcut to delay proceedings.

Balancing Power and Restraint

The Supreme Court was careful to note that Article 226 remains a cornerstone of judicial review. High Courts cannot be stripped of their constitutional powers. However, the Court stressed that these powers must be exercised with self-imposed restraint.

The judgment strikes a balance between protecting citizens’ rights and ensuring that tribunals function effectively. It also reinforces the principle that specialized forums exist for a reason and must be respected.

Reactions from the Legal Community

Senior advocates have welcomed the ruling, saying it will bring greater clarity to the scope of Article 226. Many pointed out that High Courts often face thousands of writ petitions that could have been filed before tribunals.

By discouraging such practices, the Supreme Court has ensured that judicial time is used more efficiently.

At the same time, lawyers note that the exceptions carved out by the Court—such as cases of fundamental rights violations or lack of jurisdiction—remain important safeguards for citizens.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank case is a significant reaffirmation of judicial discipline. It makes clear that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions in matters that fall within the domain of tribunals, except in rare and exceptional cases.

This decision strengthens the role of tribunals, reduces unnecessary litigation in High Courts, and ensures that Article 226 remains a powerful but carefully used constitutional remedy.

For citizens, the message is clear: use the remedies provided by law first and approach the High Court only when truly necessary.