Writ Jurisdiction

Constitution of India — Articles 32, 226

The power of the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) to issue writs — including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. In debt recovery, the Supreme Court has held that writ petitions challenging SARFAESI enforcement should not be entertained when the alternative remedy of a Section 17 DRT application is available.

In practice, writ jurisdiction is the door borrowers reach for to escape SARFAESI, and it is usually shut. The Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) can issue writs, but the settled position is that a High Court should not entertain a writ petition challenging SARFAESI enforcement when the statutory alternative remedy of a Section 17 application before the DRT is available. The practical consequence is that a borrower who runs to the High Court instead of the DRT typically has the petition dismissed for non-exhaustion of the alternative remedy, losing time and often the disputed property in the interim. There are narrow exceptions — a clear lack of jurisdiction, a violation of natural justice, or a challenge to the vires of the statute — where a writ may still be heard. For lenders, citing the alternative-remedy bar is a standard and effective response. Well-advised borrowers confirm whether a Section 17 DRT remedy is the proper forum before approaching the writ court.