Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers writ jurisdiction on every High Court — the power to issue directions, orders, or writs (including writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto) for the enforcement of fundamental rights and "for any other purpose" within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
**Scope — broader than Article 32.** Unlike Article 32 (which confines the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction to fundamental-rights matters), Article 226 allows HCs to issue writs for any legal right or for any "other purpose" — a phrase the Supreme Court has read expansively. This is why most writ petitions in India are filed under Article 226: the reach is broader and the first forum is closer and quicker.
**Against whom.** Article 226 lies against the State, Central Government, instrumentalities of the State, statutory bodies, and authorities performing public functions. It does not ordinarily lie against purely private parties for private-law disputes — for those, a civil suit is the remedy.
**Discretionary, but constitutional.** The writ jurisdiction is discretionary — the court may refuse to entertain a petition where an alternative remedy is adequate, where there has been unexplained delay, or where the petitioner's hands are unclean. But the power itself is constitutional and cannot be curtailed by ordinary statute (with narrow exceptions like Article 368 amendments).
**Common grounds.** Violation of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, ultra vires action, jurisdictional error, mala fides, patent illegality. See the full drafting guide linked below.