CourtSupreme Court of India
Decision26 October 1998
CollectionConstitutional, Writ & Administrative Law
FormatCRUX Case Note

The Crux

The rule of alternative remedy is a rule of judicial restraint, not a rigid jurisdictional prohibition.

What the Court held

The Supreme Court restated recognised situations in which the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction despite an alternative remedy, including enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice and action without jurisdiction.

Why it matters

The case is a recurring starting point when deciding whether to invoke Article 226 directly or first exhaust a statutory appellate or revisional mechanism.

CRUX practice note

This note isolates the proposition most likely to matter in practice. The precise ratio, factual limits and subsequent treatment of the authority should always be checked against the judgment itself before professional reliance.

Official source

The link below is to the Supreme Court of India’s official website or judgment repository.

Official Supreme Court source Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai — official court source The judgment text remains controlling. This CRUX note is an editorial summary for general information.

This Insight is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Back to Knowledge