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...