Why File a Writ Petition When an Appeal Is Available? - Justice Subramonium Prasad

During the hearing of a petition filed by Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, Justice Subramonium Prasad questioned why the petitioners had approached the High Court directly when a statutory remedy was available. The judge pointed out that an appeal could be filed under Section 414 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the rejection of their bonds. In this context, he raised objections to filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without first pursuing the available legal remedy. The court’s questions focused on whether the petition was maintainable when the law provided an alternative procedure to challenge the decision.

The judge also referred to allegations that the two leaders had violated bonds executed earlier. He observed that the Executive Magistrate (SEM) might have taken a stricter approach because the individuals were facing preventive action for a second time, despite having previously assured the authorities that they would not disturb public order. In view of the legal and procedural concerns raised by the court, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka voluntarily withdrew the petition filed on their behalf. The development highlights the importance of following the prescribed legal process when challenging preventive measures and related orders.