Article 227 is to keep the courts under the bounds of law
The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised sparingly. The exercise of such powers under the Article should be to keep the Tribunals/ subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.
Under the article 227 the High Court is not expected to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is possible.
Use the power sparingly to keep its vitality
The Supreme Court (SC) in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v Rajendra Shankar Patil, [(2010) 8 SCC 329] stated that an improper and frequent exercise of the power the Article 227 would be counterproductive and will divest the extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.
The power is not appellate or original
The power of superintendence under Article 227 is neither original nor appellate and is extended to both administrative and judicial superintendence. The power is exercised by the High Court as the suo motu custodian of justice. It is unlike as in the case of Article 226 which is normally exercised where a party is affected. The Article 227 can be exercised suo motu by the court when no party is approached as an affected party.
A petition under Art 227 is not a writ petition. The power of superintendence under Art 227 is vastly different from power under Art 226. The High Court cannot exercise power under Art 226 in cases where alternative statutory remedy is available.
When there is no perversity don’t interfere
Where there is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal or gross and manifest failure of justice on the basic principles of natural justice, the High Court cannot interfere under Article 227 to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because the lower court has taken a different view.
