Article 226 jurisdiction extends to private bodies discharging 'public functions'. The Supreme Court has periodically refined this doctrine — most recently in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and earlier in Federal Bank, Pradeep Kumar Biswas, and Binny Ltd.
Educational institutions, sports federations and certain self-regulatory bodies have been held amenable to writ jurisdiction. The test is functional, not formal — does the entity discharge a function that is in the nature of public duty (statutory, governmental, regulatory, or affecting public interest)?
Private banks generally fall outside Article 226 (Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas), as do private companies in their commercial decisions. But where private banks discharge regulatory functions (e.g., as designated under SARFAESI as a public function), writ jurisdiction has been entertained on narrow facts.
Recent High Court rulings have expanded the public-function test for digital platforms with significant market power, healthcare providers under government schemes, and education institutions receiving public recognition. Boundaries continue to evolve case-by-case.
For practitioners, the practical question is whether to invoke Article 226 or rely on civil suit/contract remedies. Article 226 offers speed and consequential reliefs (mandamus, certiorari) but requires the threshold of public-function jurisdiction. Civil suit is broader but slower. We assess the optimal route at intake.