The judgment of the Kerala High Court in OP(KAT) No.152 of 2023 (decided on 19 January 2026) is a textbook reaffirmation of the narrow and supervisory nature of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Setting aside an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the High Court emphasised that Article 227 is not an appellate provision, nor a mechanism to substitute the High Court’s views for that of a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction.
The decision is significant not for the service-law outcome alone, but for its clear restatement of constitutional discipline governing judicial superintendence.
Article 227: Constitutional Purpose and Scope
Article 227 vests the High Court with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. The object of this power, as reiterated by the Court, is to:
Maintain efficiency, uniformity, and legality in the functioning of subordinate courts and tribunals;
Ensure that such bodies act within the bounds of their authority;
Prevent grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of law.
Crucially, the High Court underscored that supervisory jurisdiction is neither original nor appellate, but corrective in exceptional circumstances alone.
Authoritative Supreme Court Guidance Reaffirmed Here
The Court placed strong reliance on established Supreme Court precedents defining the contours of Article 227.
1. Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
The Supreme Court held that the power under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly and with self-imposed restraint, lest the High Court transform itself into a regular appellate forum. The Kerala High Court reiterated that:
The purpose of superintendence is to keep the “fountain of justice pure”;
Excessive interference would undermine the independence and efficiency of tribunals.
2. Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
This decision was cited to stress that Article 227 jurisdiction:
Cannot be exercised “like a bull in a china shop”;
Is not meant to correct every legal or factual error;
Is confined to cases involving grave procedural impropriety or jurisdictional transgression.
The High Court applied this principle to hold that mere disagreement with the Tribunal’s reasoning cannot justify interference unless the decision is fundamentally flawed.
3. K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Reaffirming this authority, the Court observed that interference under Article 227 is permissible only when there is:
Patent perversity;
Gross and manifest failure of justice; or
Violation of basic principles of natural justice.
Absent these factors, supervisory correction is constitutionally impermissible.
4. Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair
The Kerala High Court relied on its own Division Bench ruling to emphasise that:
The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under Article 227;
It cannot act as if hearing a first appeal;
Findings of fact by tribunals are ordinarily immune from supervisory review.
Application of Article 227 Principles to the Case
pplying the above jurisprudence, the Court examined whether the Tribunal’s order suffered from:
Manifest illegality,
Perversity,
Jurisdictional error, or
Direct conflict with settled law.
The Court concluded that the Tribunal had misapplied binding legal principles and ignored settled precedent, thereby exceeding its adjudicatory limits. Such an error, being jurisdictional and legal in nature, justified interference under Article 227.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its interference was not based on re-evaluation of facts, but on correction of a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Article 227 Distinguished from Appellate Review
A central theme of the judgment is the clear demarcation between appellate jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction:
| Appellate Jurisdiction | Supervisory Jurisdiction (Art. 227) |
|---|---|
| Reassessment of facts | No reappreciation of evidence |
| Correction of all errors | Correction of jurisdictional or perverse errors |
| Substitution of views | Ensuring legality and procedural discipline |
The Court warned that blurring this distinction would constitutionalise appellate review, contrary to the intent of Article 227.
Conclusion
This judgment stands as a constitutional reminder of judicial restraint. By setting aside the Tribunal’s order strictly within the framework of Article 227 jurisprudence, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed that:
Supervisory jurisdiction is exceptional, not routine;
Tribunals are not subordinate in the appellate sense;
High Courts must resist the temptation to correct every perceived error.
The ruling thus strengthens institutional balance between High Courts and tribunals and reinforces the rule of law through restraint, which is the true essence of Article 227