Administrative lawCertiorariSupreme Court of India

Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque

AIR 1955 Supreme Court 23319551 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Election Tribunal determined disputed questions of fact in an election petition. Petitioner (Kamath) was dissatisfied with the factual findings. Sought certiorari to have the High Court correct the Tribunal's findings of fact.
Issue
Whether certiorari lies to correct errors of fact made by a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction?
Held
Certiorari is not a general right of appeal. It corrects: (i) jurisdictional errors; (ii) errors of law apparent on the face of the record. It does not correct errors of fact made within jurisdiction.
Principle
Certiorari corrects jurisdictional errors and errors of law on the face of the record; it does not correct errors of fact made within jurisdiction.
Cite this

Facts

  • Election Tribunal determined disputed questions of fact in an election petition
  • Petitioner (Kamath) was dissatisfied with the factual findings
  • Sought certiorari to have the High Court correct the Tribunal's findings of fact

Issue

  1. Whether certiorari lies to correct errors of fact made by a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction?

Held

  • Certiorari is not a general right of appeal. It corrects: (i) jurisdictional errors; (ii) errors of law apparent on the face of the record. It does not correct errors of fact made within jurisdiction.

Ratio decidendi

Certiorari is supervisory, not appellate. Its scope is limited to jurisdictional error and error of law on the face of the record. Factual errors within jurisdiction are immune from certiorari.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Critical limit of certiorari in ADM-5.3. Certiorari does not lie to correct factual errors within jurisdiction.

Cite this

Citation

Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233

Reported: AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.