The Calcutta Weekly Notes February 12 1951

The ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constittion has formed the subject-matter of cosiderable discussion. [...] Another rule being Rule 43 has been insered in the same chapter : "Applications for the issue of orders or writs in the nature of madamus prohibition quo warrant° and certorari or any of them referred to in Article 226 (1) ( f the Constitution of India ouside the original jurisdiction of the Court shall subject to any direction by the Chief Justice be made before the Judge on the [...] In Charanjit Lal v. Union of India A. I. R. 1951 5 C. 53 Mukherjea J. negtived the preliminary argument based on defects in formulating the prayers in these words : "Any way Article 32 of the Costitution gives us very wide discretion in the matter of framing our writs to suit the exigencies of particular cases and the aplication of the Petitioner cannot be thrown out simply on the [...] The extent of the powers of the High Cour' s under the said article the nature of the reliefs available thereunder to the people should be definitely known. [...] The power of a High Court appears to have been much more than that of the Supreme Court in this regard which was empowered to exercise any such powers only in the case of infringement of fundmental rights and in case of infringement of no other rights as are not recognised in Part III of the Constitution.