Supreme Court will not restore illegal trial court order correcting article 227 overreach

While exercising appellate jurisdiction against a High Court judgment under Article 227, the Supreme Court remains conscious of the supervisory limitations imposed on High Courts regarding interlocutory orders. Even if a High Court exceeds its supervisory scope by interfering with an interlocutory trial court order, the Supreme Court will decline to set aside the High Court's judgment if doing so would restore an intrinsically illegal or incorrect trial court determination. Restoring an unsustainable trial court order merely to enforce procedural boundaries under Article 227 would perpetuate a substantive legal error. Substantive correctness prevails over procedural overreach when avoiding the restoration of invalid orders. Appellate jurisprudence prioritizes the final dispensation of justice over technical restoration of flawed lower court rulings. Perpetuating an illegality by correcting a procedural irregularity runs counter to equitable doctrines. The apex court ensures that final judicial decrees reflect legal soundness and fairness. Therefore, flawed trial orders remain set aside even if the intermediate supervisory approach was technically broad. (NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Ors. | 2026 INSC 8)