SUPREME COURT CRITICISES GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF DESPITE DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITIONS ON GROUNDS OF ALTERNATE REMEDY:

The Supreme Court of India has strongly disapproved the practice adopted by some High Courts of granting interim protection after declining to entertain writ petitions on the ground that an effective alternative remedy is available. The Court described such an approach as internally inconsistent and contrary to established principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction. According to the Supreme Court, once a High Court consciously refuses to entertain a writ petition, the proceedings must come to a complete end, leaving no scope for the grant of interim relief in favour of the petitioner.

These observations were made by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma while hearing a matter arising from an order passed by the Bombay High Court. In that case, the High Court had declined to entertain a writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available under law. However, despite refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction, the High Court proceeded to grant an interim stay on the impugned order, with the stated intention of enabling the petitioner to approach the appropriate alternate forum.

The Supreme Court found this course of action to be legally untenable. It emphasized that the power to grant interim relief is inherently ancillary to the power to grant final relief. When a High Court, after due application of mind, chooses not to entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, particularly on the ground that an alternative remedy has not been exhausted, the writ proceedings cease to survive. In such circumstances, no substantive relief can be granted on the petition, and therefore, the question of granting interim protection does not arise. Any interim order passed after declining jurisdiction would amount to judicial overreach and would undermine the very rationale for relegating the petitioner to an alternate forum.

The Bench further underscored that granting interim relief in such situations defeats judicial discipline and creates an anomalous situation where a court that has declined to adjudicate on merits nonetheless restrains the operation of the very order it has refused to examine. This, the Court explained, allows the petitioner to indirectly obtain the benefit of writ jurisdiction despite the court’s express refusal to exercise it. Such a practice dilutes the settled doctrine that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should ordinarily not be invoked when an efficacious statutory remedy is available.

In support of its reasoning, the Supreme Court relied on a binding Constitution Bench decision rendered in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (AIR 1952 SC 12). That decision clearly lays down that interim relief cannot be granted independently of, or in the absence of, the court’s power to grant final relief. Any interim order passed when the main proceedings themselves are not maintainable is impermissible in law. The Bench observed that interim protection, whether in the form of a stay or a direction to maintain status quo, cannot survive once the writ petition is declined at the threshold.

Concluding the matter, the Supreme Court expressed its expectation that High Courts across the country would take due note of these binding principles and strictly adhere to them. The Court conveyed its hope that such legally inconsistent orders would not recur in the future, thereby reinforcing uniformity, discipline, and constitutional propriety in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.