AdvertisementThe article discusses the doctrine of alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that while High Courts ordinarily refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, this restraint is a rule of judicial prudence and not an absolute bar. Alternate Remedy Is a Rule of Prudence, Not an Absolute BarThe Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that the doctrine of alternate remedy is a rule of judicial prudence and convenience, not a rule of jurisdiction or an absolute bar on the exercise of powers under Article 226. What is the doctrine of alternate remedy under Article 226? The doctrine of alternate remedy is a rule of judicial prudence under which High Courts ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory remedy is available. Why is the doctrine of alternate remedy described as a rule of prudence and not a rule of abdication?