INTRODUCTION
This Article examines the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6719 of 2012, decided on 12 November 2025 by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar. The core legal issue in the case revolves around the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when a statutory remedy exists but is not availed.
BRIEF FACTS
On 27 September 1992, the authorities seized alleged smuggled silver weighing 252.177 kg from the Appellant. The Commissioner of Customs passed an Order on 7 May 1996 confiscating the silver and imposing a monetary penalty. The Appellant challenged this before CEGAT, which reduced the penalty but maintained the confiscation through an Order dated 23 June 2000.
Despite an available statutory appeal to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the Appellant did not pursue it within the prescribed period of limitation. Instead, he approached the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 in March 2003, seeking to challenge both confiscation and penalty. The High Court dismissed the Petition citing availability of an alternate remedy, delay and lack of merit.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court was required to determine:
1) Whether a High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when the petitioner has failed to exhaust an alternative statutory remedy which lies before the same High Court?
2) A subsidiary question arose on whether the appellant could dispute confiscation when requisite pleadings were not properly laid before the High Court.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Court reaffirmed the principle that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, even though constitutionally wide. Judicial precedents mandate that when an equally efficacious statutory remedy is available, writ jurisdiction ought to be exercised sparingly.
In this case, the Court took note of two important and often overlooked Constitution Bench authorities:
Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid — A writ court should avoid bypassing statutory machinery, particularly where the designated appellate forum is the High Court itself.
A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani — A petitioner who loses a remedy due to his own delay cannot invoke writ jurisdiction as a substitute remedy.
The Court emphasised that while no strict limitation applies to writ petitions, invocation must be within a “reasonable period” and the time provided for statutory appellate remedy is a clear indicator of what is reasonable.
Here, the Appellant:
i. Allowed the limitation period for filing an appeal/reference under Section 130A to lapse
ii. Provided an unconvincing explanation for the delay
iii. Failed to plead that specific grounds regarding confiscation were argued before CEGAT
Thus, the Court ruled that the High Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition, both on procedural grounds and on the merits.
The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.
CONCLUSION
This Judgment reinforces a critical doctrine: constitutional remedies cannot serve as an escape route from statutory discipline. When a litigant neglect a legally provided appellate mechanism — especially before the same High Court — the writ court must ordinarily refuse relief. The decision reflects a judicial commitment to procedural orderliness, ensuring that constitutional powers are exercised in a principled and structured manner.
The message is clear — the rule of law protects those who act within its framework, not those who bypass it.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained|” can be viewed at the link below: