Article 227 And The Limits Of Supervisory Jurisdiction: The Recent Supreme Court Judgment In K. Valarmathi

Posted On - 10 June, 2025 • By - Agnel Leona

Introduction

Article 227 of the Constitution of India vests the High Courts with supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within their territory. While this power ensures that subordinate courts act within their lawful bounds, its misuse may lead to procedural irregularities. Recently, in K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan, the Supreme Court clarified the limits of Article 227, holding that a High Court cannot reject a plaint by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction.[1]

Article 227 of the Indian Constitution and the Powers of High Courts

Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers every High Court to exercise superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territorial jurisdiction. It provides administrative as well as judicial supervisory powers, independent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. This power is founded upon the need to maintain judicial discipline, avoid miscarriage of justice, and maintain the purity of the judicial process at the lower level.

Under Clause (1), the High Court’s superintendence is extended over all courts and tribunals expect those related to the Armed Forces. The extensive jurisdiction is meant to ensure that lower authorities act within the legal framework and do not neglect or exceed their powers.

Clause (2) allows the High Court to:

  • Call for returns from subordinate courts,
  • Set general rules and prescribe forms for the conduct of court proceedings,
  • Prescribe formats for court officers to follow for maintaining records and accounts.

Clause (3) empowers the High Court to determine tables of fees to be paid to legal practitioners and court officers. The proviso to Clauses (2) and (3) ensures that such regulation or tables are not in conflict with any other law and must be approved by the Governor beforehand, in balance between judicial independence and legislative control.

Clause (4) expressly excludes courts or tribunals established by laws under the Armed Forces from the purview of this Article, to preserve the independence of military judicial institutions.

The nature of superintendence under Article 227 is judicial as well as administrative. It authorizes the High Court to not only oversee the functioning and conduct of the subordinate courts, but also their judicial orders if they exceed the bounds of legal propriety. It is not a power of appeal; its exercise cannot be directed for the sole objective of rectifying a factual or legal error committed in exercise of jurisdiction.

The High Court can step in under Article 227 in the following instances:

  • Where other courts do so arbitrarily or capriciously
  • Where they exceed or do not exercise jurisdiction,
  • Where their conclusions are so perverse or irrational that no reasonable judicial mind would have reached such a conclusion,
  • Where there is a manifest misdirection in law leading to grave injustice.

Such jurisdiction must be exercised with caution and restraint, with the fear of undermining the independence of the lower courts, or the High Court being reduced to a forum for second appeals.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed in every case that Article 227 is not a weapon for interference in regular cases but a constitutional guarantee to ensure the judicial system works in a legal, equitable, and effective manner. It is a means to uphold the rule of law in the sense that it enables the High Courts to keep the lower courts in their legal limits, without being an ordinary court of appeal.

The Recent SC Decision: K. Valarmathi

Background of the Case

  • Appellants, legal successors of Kathiresan (wife and daughters), claimed title to farm land purchased by Kathiresan in the name of his nephew, the respondent, on the advice of a so-called astrologer.
  • Although the respondent remained the owner in law, Kathiresan possessed the land all through his life, and the appellants claimed possession continued on his death.
  • The appellants had conflicts with the extended family members of Kathiresan over the titles of land and other properties.
  • When the respondent proceeded to alienate the subject property, the appellants filed O.S. No. 1087 of 2018 for declaration of title and an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the property.
  • Meanwhile, another suit (O.S. No. 201 of 2018) was instituted in respect of other properties purchased too.
  • The respondent had filed a petition in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution requesting rejection of plaint in the two suits, based on the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act).
  • The High Court allowed the petition in relation to the present suit (O.S. No. 1087/2018), rejecting the plaint on the ground that it was barred by the Benami Act. The rejection in the other suit was declined.

The Court’s Reasoning and Decision

  • The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could reject a plaint in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, overriding the statutory procedure established in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
  • It underlined that Article 227 is one of supervisory and not original jurisdiction. It is to ensure that there is a check on the functioning of the lower courts within legal limits and to be exercised judiciously only where there is grave injustice, jurisdictional mistake, or perverse exercise of discretion.
  • Order VII Rule 11 CPC governs the rejection of a plaint and can be invoked only by the trial court. The above would be a deemed decree, and Section 96 CPC governs its appealability.
  • In rejecting the plaint summarily under Article 227, the High Court had not corrected an error of a trial court but had superseded the judgment of the trial court by its own, thus bypassing the lawmaking process.
  • The Court held that Article 227 cannot be used to bypass the procedural remedies and intrude into jurisdiction reserved for the trial court.
  • Reliance was placed on prior judgments including Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society[2] and Jacky v. Tiny[3], where similar misuse of supervisory jurisdiction was disapproved.
  • The Court noted that even if a plaint is barred by law, the appropriate procedure is to seek rejection in advance of the trial court and there must be a remedy of appeal.
  • Accordingly, the High Court’s decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, reinstating the plaint and making it evident that the respondent could approach the trial court for rejection of plaint under CPC, if she so desired.
  • It ended by warning against judicial haste that erodes procedural protections, cautioning that haste should not be at the cost of the rule of law and statutory framework.

Conclusion

The evolution of Article 227 jurisprudence reveals a careful judicial balancing act – ensuring oversight without overreach. While the provision empowers High Courts to maintain the legality and discipline of subordinate courts, its misuse risks collapsing the boundaries between supervisory and appellate functions. The K. Valarmathi decision illustrates the Court’s continuing effort to reinforce these limits, warning against procedural shortcuts that bypass trial-level adjudication. It serves as a timely reminder that judicial efficiency cannot come at the expense of procedural propriety and that constitutional remedies must not be wielded to sidestep statutory mechanisms deliberately crafted by the legislature.

[1] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/39092/39092_2024_11_1504_61287_Judgement_29-Apr-2025.pdf.

[2] Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538.

[3] Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 508.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com