ALTERNATIVE REMEDY RULE VS ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: A JUDICIAL BALANCING ACT

AUTHORS – KSHITIJ SAHU* & ASTHA SRIVASTAVA**

* STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW CAMPUS

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – KSHITIJ SAHU & ASTHA SRIVASTAVA, ALTERNATIVE REMEDY RULE VS ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: A JUDICIAL BALANCING ACT, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (1) OF 2026, PG.865-872, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

Article 226 of the Constitution of India occupies a central position in the framework of judicial review by empowering High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of both fundamental rights and other legal rights. This wide jurisdiction ensures that individuals have access to an effective constitutional remedy against arbitrary state action. However, the exercise of this power is not absolute and is often regulated by the judicially evolved doctrine of alternative remedy, which requires litigants to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The doctrine of alternative remedy reflects a principle of judicial self-restraint aimed at maintaining procedural discipline, respecting legislative intent, and preventing unnecessary burden on constitutional courts. At the same time, a rigid application of this rule may hinder access to justice and undermine the constitutional promise of effective remedies.

This research paper examines the tension between Article 226 and the alternative remedy rule as a judicial balancing act between constitutional supremacy and institutional efficiency. It traces the historical development of the doctrine, analyzes key judicial pronouncements, and identifies well-recognized exceptions that permit High Courts to exercise jurisdiction despite the existence of alternative remedies.

The paper argues that the Indian judiciary has adopted a flexible and pragmatic approach by treating the rule as discretionary rather than mandatory. Such an approach ensures that procedural technicalities do not override substantive justice. The study concludes that while the alternative remedy rule is essential for maintaining judicial order, it must be applied cautiously to preserve the fundamental objective of Article 226—ensuring access to justice and protection of rights.

Keywords: Article 226, Judicial Review, Writ Jurisdiction, Doctrine of Alternative Remedy, Access to Justice, Judicial Self-Restraint