Article 226 is Not a Magic Wand There is a running joke in every High Court corridor and, like most courtroom jokes, it carries a quiet bitterness within it. Ask any junior advocate what the most common ground of dismissal is, and he will tell you without a moment's hesitation: alternative remedy. He has probably heard it more times than he has eaten lunch in the canteen. And yet, the petitions keep coming. Every week, dockets swell with writ petitions that have no business being there. Show-cause notices are challenged before a reply is even filed. Tax demands are dragged into constitutional courts when a statutory appeal sits right there, untouched. Factual disputes, matters of evidence, credibility, and competing claims, are dressed up in the solemn language of Articles 226 and 32, as though the Constitution were a convenient shortcut around the inconvenience of regular litigation. The Supreme Court has said it plainly and repeatedly, from Thansingh Nathmal in 1964 t...
Ahh, the cubicle conundrum strikes again—fresh off the Bombay High Court's December 8, 2025, bench slap during a whirlwind of over 100 local-body election petitions.Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar's zinger—"You cannot address the Court sitting in a car"—landed like a gavel on a gearshift, disconnecting a hapless Nagpur lawyer mid-plea. Fair enough for the optics; no one wants dashboard divas turning deliberations into drive-thru debates. But the follow-up? A stern directive to the Maharashtra government: "Immediately identify and allocate space" for lawyer cubicles in or near court premises, as an "interim" fix until that mythical new building materializes. It's like prescribing a luxury lounge for a headache—well-intentioned, perhaps, but wildly out of touch with the feverish reality of India's 1.45 billion-strong legal scrum. Your point cuts straight to the spleen of this absurdity, and it's a gut-punch worth amplifying: Imagine an...