The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment delivered by Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, addressed the extent to which a High Court may grant relief that is not expressly sought in the pleadings when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the general principle is that a High Court should remain confined to the reliefs and averments presented by the parties. This limitation is rooted in the adversarial nature of proceedings and the need to prevent surprise or prejudice to the opposite side.

However, the Bench emphasised that this principle is not absolute. The Court held that the rule admits of flexibility when the High Court is acting under its writ jurisdiction. The flexibility arises because Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. In exercising this power, the Court may look beyond the formal pleadings if the record before it clearly establishes that the petitioner is legally entitled to the relief sought.

The judgment further clarified that such an approach is permissible only in exceptional cases. The Bench explained that an exceptional case arises when the material on record demonstrates a clear legal entitlement of the petitioner. If the High Court were to deny relief merely because the relief was not specifically pleaded, and such denial would perpetuate an injustice, the Court may intervene to grant the appropriate relief. The Court warned that this power must be exercised sparingly and only when the injustice resulting from a technical denial is evident.

The reasoning underscores the balance between procedural fairness and substantive justice. By allowing a departure from the pleadings in limited circumstances, the Supreme Court seeks to ensure that technicalities do not defeat a legitimate claim. At the same time, the Court reiterated that the High Court must be satisfied that the record unequivocally supports the petitioner’s entitlement before stepping outside the pleadings.

The decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram (No. 850808321) illustrates the application of this principle. Although the specific facts of the case were not detailed in the excerpt, the Court’s observation indicates that the record satisfied the requirement of a clear legal entitlement, thereby justifying relief beyond the pleadings. The judgment serves as a guidance for High Courts across the country, signalling that while adherence to pleadings remains the norm, the Court will not allow a mere procedural oversight to obstruct justice when the substantive rights of a party are demonstrably established.

Legal practitioners are advised to ensure that pleadings are comprehensive, yet they may also take comfort in the knowledge that a High Court retains the capacity to mould relief to prevent injustice, provided the legal foundation is evident from the record. The judgment reinforces the role of Article 226 as a remedial provision aimed at protecting rights, while reminding courts to exercise the flexibility with caution and restraint.