This article was written to delve deeper into Article 227. Before we proceed with Article 227, we must first understand what Article 226 is, as it is essential to the judicial system in which the high courts exercise their powers.

Article 226, enables the writ jurisdiction of all Indian High Courts to give the orders, instructions, and writs, including the writs of Mandamus, Certiorari, Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition, to any person or authority, including the government.

The powers conferred on the High Courts by this article are quite similar to those conferred by Article 32. Regardless, the Supreme Court's powers are limited compared to the High Court's since the Supreme Court can only consider cases involving violations of fundamental rights.

Article 227:

The High Courts have superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals across the territory under this article. Superintendence is both administrative and judicial. This power is primarily intended to keep subordinate courts within the confines of their authority; hence it should be utilized sparingly.

The following powers can be exercised under Article 227:

• Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts.
• Settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts.
• Call for returns from such courts,
• Prescribe forms in which books, entries, and accounts be kept by the officers of any such courts.

It is critical to emphasize that the High Court must not intervene to correct a simple factual error or to reverse a subordinate court's decision that is within that court's jurisdiction. The High Court can intervene under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution if the finding is perverse in such a way that no reasonable man with if the assessment is not based on any provable facts, understanding of the law might have led to such a conclusion., if the discovery results in manifest injustice, or if there is a mistake in law.

The High Court may ask for returns, create and issue regulations, and define forms for controlling how the courts conduct their hearings and practice. It may also dictate how the employees of any of these tribunals would keep book entries and accounts. Furthermore, under Article 227, the High Court may determine the fees given to court staff such as sheriffs, clerks, and officers, as well as attorneys and pleaders appearing at the court.

The only inconsistency to the provisions stipulates that, regardless of how broad the scope of oversight imposed on the High Courts by the provision, it does not apply to the oversight of courts or tribunals established under legislation about the military services.

The history of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction and how it evolved into its current form under Article 227 of the Constitution has been accurately tracked in the judgment of Waryam Singh & Anr. v. Amarnath & Anr.

The clause does not provide unfettered power; rather, it is constrained by precedents. The following grounds have been listed for utilizing the provision: absence of jurisdiction, perverse conclusions, grave breaches of natural justice, and so forth.

In Umaji v. Radlikabai (AIR 1988 SC 1272) the West Bengal Act no. 25 of 1988 introduced a provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that the District Court would have revisional authority. It went on to say that further amendment "by the High Court or any other court" is out of the question. This appears to be outside the bounds of the law. The Supreme Court panel agreed that this is unconstitutional since no law may repeal the constitutional clause conferring superintendence on the High Court.

In the preceding case, it was also emphasized on the circumstances in which the High Court can interfere under Article 227. It said that the High Court does not have infinite authority to redress all types of hardship or incorrect decisions taken within its power. It only needs to interfere when there is an obvious mistake on the surface of the record when findings are perverse or not founded on any material, when a result reached is such that no rational tribunal could have reached, or when findings were manifested in injustice.

Conclusion:
The High Court has supervisory authority over all subordinate courts under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. The supervisory power manifests itself in the form of being able to revise decisions of courts or tribunals in its jurisdiction. Such revisionary abilities are subject to the limitations set forth in the legislation and evolved via court decisions as previously noted.