What is Writ?

Writs are a written order from the Supreme Court or High Court that commands constitutional
remedies for Indian Citizens against the violation of their fundamental rights. Article 32 in the Indian
Constitution deals with constitutional remedies that an Indian citizen can seek from the Supreme
Court and High Court against the violation of his/her fundamental rights. The same article gives the
Supreme Court power to issue writs for the enforcement of rights whereas the High Court has the
same power under Article 226. The writs- Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and
Prohibition.

This article will mention the types of writs that come under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court and High Courts.

Types of Writs in India –

Types of Writs in India

The Supreme Court of India is the defender of the fundamental rights of the citizens. For that, it has
original and wide powers. It issues five kinds of writs for enforcing the fundamental rights of the
citizens. The five types of writs are:

1. Habeas Corpus
2. Mandamus
3. Prohibition
4. Certiorari
5. Quo-Warranto

Habeas Corpus
The Latin meaning of the word ‘Habeas Corpus’ is ‘To have the body of.’ This writ is used to enforce
the fundamental right of individual liberty against unlawful detention. Through Habeas Corpus,
Supreme Court/High Court orders one person who has arrested another person to bring the body of
the latter before the court.

Facts about Habeas Corpus in India:

 The Supreme Court or High Court can issue this writ against both private and public
authorities.
 Habeas Corpus can not be issued in the following cases:
o When detention is lawful
o When the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court
o Detention is by a competent court
o Detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court

Mandamus
The literal meaning of this writ is ‘We command.’ This writ is used by the court to order the public
official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty, to resume his work. Besides
public officials, Mandamus can be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a
tribunal, or government for the same purpose.

Facts about Mandamus in India:

 Unlike Habeas Corpus, Mandamus cannot be issued against a private individual

 Mandamus can not be issued in the following cases:
o To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force
o To order someone to work when the kind of work is discretionary and not mandatory
o To enforce a contractual obligation
o Mandamus can’t be issued against the Indian President or State Governors
o Against the Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity

For more on the writ of mandamus, click on the linked article.

Prohibition
The literal meaning of ‘Prohibition’ is ‘To forbid.’ A court that is higher in position issues a Prohibition
writ against a court that is lower in position to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or
usurping a jurisdiction that it does not possess. It directs inactivity.

Facts about Prohibition in India:

 Writ of Prohibition can only be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
 It can’t be issued against administrative authorities, legislative bodies and private individuals
or bodies.

Certiorari
The literal meaning of the writ of ‘Certiorari’ is ‘To be certified’ or ‘To be informed.’ This writ is issued
by a court higher in authority to a lower court or tribunal ordering them either to transfer a case
pending with them to itself or quash their order in a case. It is issued on the grounds of an excess of
jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law. It not only prevents but also cures for the mistakes
in the judiciary.

Facts about Certiorari in India:

 Pre-1991: The writ of Certiorari used to be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial
authorities and not against administrative authorities
 Post-1991: The Supreme Court ruled that the certiorari can be issued even against
administrative authorities affecting the rights of individuals
 It cannot be issued against legislative bodies and private individuals or bodies.

Quo-Warranto
The literal meaning of the writ of ‘Quo-Warranto’ is ‘By what authority or warrant.’ Supreme Court or
High Court issue this writ to prevent illegal usurpation of a public office by a person. Through this
writ, the court enquires into the legality of a claim of a person to a public office

Facts about Quo-Warranto in India:

  Quo-Warranto can be issued only when the substantive public office of a permanent
character created by a statute or by the Constitution is involved
 It can’t be issued against private or ministerial office

Note: This writ gives the right to seek redressal to any individual other than the aggrieved person.

General Facts about Writs in India:

 Article 32 also empowers Parliament to authorize any other court to issue these writs
 Before 1950, only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras had the power to issue
the writs
 Article 226 empowers all the High Courts of India to issue the writs
 Writs of India are borrowed from English law where they are known as ‘Prerogative writs’

How Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Differs from that of the High
Court?
Where Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs; Article 226
empowers the High Courts of India. However, there are a few differences between the writ
jurisdiction of both the courts which are given in the table below:

Difference Supreme Court High Court

Purpose To only enforce fundamental To enforce fundamental rights
rights but also for other purposes (The
expression ‘for any other
purpose’ refers to the
enforcement of an ordinary
legal right)
Territorial Jurisdiction Against a person or government  Against a person
throughout the territory of India residing, government or
authority located within
its territorial jurisdiction
only
Or
 Outside its territorial
jurisdiction only if the
cause of action arises
within its territorial
jurisdiction
Power Article 32 is a fundamental Discretionary-May refuse to
right- the Supreme Court may exercise its power to issue writs
not refuse to exercise its power
to issue the writs
This Article is written by Adarsh Singh Thakur, 3rd-year student, Indore Institute of
Law. He discusses the writs and their types under the Indian Constitution in detail.

Introduction
The Supreme Court and the High Courts have been provided with many powers
which they exercise to provide justice to the people. One of the most important
tools or power which the courts have been provided with by the constitution is the
power to issue writs.

A Writ means a command of the Court to another person or authority by which such
person/authority has to act or abstain from acting in a certain way. Thus, writs are
a very essential part of the judicial power of the Courts.

Writs in the Constitution

In India, the constitution has provided the Supreme Court with the power to issue
the Writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Under Article 32, when any
Fundamental Right of a citizen is violated, that person has the right to directly
approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of his rights and the Court can
issue the appropriate Writ for enforcing such right.

The power to issue Writs are also provided to the High Courts of India under Article
226. While citizens can approach the Supreme Court only when his Fundamental
Right is infringed, the citizens also have the right to approach the High Court for the
issue of Writs in other matters in which the fundamental rights are not violated. For
e.g. in the case of Smt. Imtiaz Bano vs Masood Ahmad Jafri And Ors. a mother had
filed a writ petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 to get custody of her 2
children. The High Court allowed the petition and the writ was issued in her favour.
Thus, the scope of the power to issue Writs is wider in the case of High Courts as
compared to the Supreme Court.

Illustration: A is an Indian citizen whose Fundamental Right has been violated.

Here A has the Right to either approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for
enforcing his right. But if there is a violation of A’s right which is not a Fundamental
Right then, he only has the right to approach the High Court under Article 226.
Therefore, a citizen has the right to approach either the Supreme Court or the High
Court for issue of writs but if he chooses to approach any of the Court and his suit
is dismissed by the court, the citizen cannot file the same suit in the other Court
because in India, the principle of res judicata is being followed which means that a
second case cannot be filed for the same cause of action. But if a person files the
case in the High Court and the High Court does not decide in his favour, he has the
right to appeal against the decision in the Supreme Court.

Illustration: A files a suit under Article 226 in the High Court and the Court
accepts his suit. After the proceedings of the case are concluded, the High Court
ruled in favour of the defendant. Here A has the Right to appeal in the Supreme
Court against the decision of the High Court. But if the High Court had rejected the
suit filed by A, then he does not have the right to appeal in the Supreme Court.

Types of Writs
The Indian Constitution provides 5 types of writs which can be issued by the Courts.
They are:

1. Habeas Corpus
2. Mandamus
3. Certiorari
4. Quo Warranto
5. Prohibition

Habeas Corpus
The Writ of Habeas Corpus is issued by the Courts in those cases where a person is
illegally detained. Habeas Corpus means ‘to have the body’ and it is one of the most
effective remedies available to a person detained.

By this Writ, the Court commands the person or authority who has detained or
restrained another person to present such person before the Court. The Court
requires the detaining person to provide the grounds on which the person has been
detained and if he fails to provide a valid ground, the person who has been
detained will be released by the Court immediately.

Illustration: A is wrongfully detained by B, a police officer. A writes to the High

Court regarding the same. The High Court summons B with A and asks the grounds
for detaining A. If B fails to provide a valid ground or justification for A’s detention,
A will be free to go.

This Writ is very important for the personal liberty of the citizens because if this
Writ is not provided by the Constitution a person can be unlawfully restrained or
detained by any authority and it will be a clear violation of the personal liberty of
the citizens.

Even though the purpose this Writ is to prevent a person from being detained but it
will be applicable only when the detention or restraint is unlawful. If the Court finds
the grounds for detaining to be justified then this Writ cannot be issued. Also, if the
Court orders the detention of a person then it does not amount to unlawful
detention and this Writ cannot be issued.

This Writ can be applied not only by the person who is detained but it can also be
done by some other person on behalf of the detained person.

Rules regarding the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The following are the rules related to the writ of Habeas Corpus:

1. The applicant should be in custody of another

2. Usually, the detained person and his family members are allowed to file an
application for habeas corpus but the court has also allowed such application
by strangers if it is done in public interest.
3. The manner prescribed for filing this writ is not necessary so both formal and
informal applications in respect of the writ is accepted by the Courts. For e.g.
a writ application can also be made by postcard. In the case of Sunil Batra
v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court had accepted the application
made through a letter by a co-convict (a stranger) due to the inhuman
treatment of prisoners. In this case, the letter was accepted as an application
and the writ of Habeas Corpus was issued.
4. A person cannot make the application for the Writ successively to different
judges of the same court. Thus, if an application is rejected by one judge, the
same application cannot be made to another judge of the same court and if it
is done, such an application will be rejected because of the principle of res
judicata.
5. This Writ will apply in case of an arrest made by the police when all the
formalities and procedures which are required to be followed are not
followed. For example – the requirement of presenting the arrested person
before a magistrate or the officer in charge of the police station. [Section 56
of CrPC]

Liberal Approach of the Court

In the cases of Habeas Corpus, the Courts have recognised the existing socio-
economic conditions in the country and the fact that still, many people are illiterate
and poor. Thus, the Courts do not reject the application made by the petitioner on
the grounds that he has failed to show the proper ground on which he has
challenged the detention.

Mandamus
Mandamus is another important Writ which is provided for by the Indian
Constitution. In the Writ of Mandamus, the superior courts order the Inferior Courts
to do an act or to abstain from doing an act. This order can also be given to an
Inferior Tribunal, Board, Corporation or any other type of administrative authority.
In India, the Supreme Court is the apex court, therefore it has the power to issue
the Writ of Mandamus even against the High Court even though the High Courts
have also been provided with the power to issue such Writs under Article 226. So, a
High Court can issue this Writ under Article 226 only to the Inferior Courts such as
the trial court of a district.

This Writ is useful for enforcing the duty which is required to be done by law or by
the office which a person holds. For e.g. the Judge of the Court has a duty to follow
the principles of natural justice and if the Judge fails to do so, a Writ can be issued
by the Superior Court to observe the fulfillment of this duty.

One of the most important points about the Writ of Mandamus is that it cannot be
issued against a private person and therefore only the State or the people who hold
any office which falls in the category of a public office can be compelled to do or to
abstain from doing an act.

Illustration: A is a public servant who has a duty towards B which he has to fulfil
according to the law but he doesn’t fulfil the duty. B is aggrieved by this non-
performance and therefore approaches the High Court for demanding the fulfilment
of the duty by A. Here the High Court on being satisfied that the case of B is bona
fide and there is a duty which should be fulfilled, will issue the Writ of Mandamus
and A will be bound to fulfil the duty he has avoided until now. But if A was a
businessman who had some duty towards B but he fails to perform it. In such a
case A cannot approach the Court for Mandamus because this Writ cannot be issued
against a private person.

Grounds for Mandamus

This Writ can be issued by the Courts on the following grounds:

 The petitioner has a right recognized by law. The whole purpose of this Writ
is to enforce the rights of the citizens but if there is no right which accrues to
a plaintiff, he cannot approach the court to issue the Writ of Mandamus.
 The right of the petitioner has been infringed. Having a right does not
automatically give ground for issuing the Writs because any person will
approach the court without having any cause of action. Thus only when a
right is violated, the Writ can be issued by the court.
 The petitioner has demanded the authority to perform their duty but there
has been non-performance of such duty. The Writ is issued to compel the
authority to do the act which they are required to do by law or by the post
they are holding thus it is an essential ground for Mandamus.
 The last essential ground for Mandamus is the absence of an effective
alternative remedy which can be resorted to by the petitioner to enforce the
duty of the authority.
 The petitioner has to show to the Court that a duty is owed to him by the
authority and such authority has not performed their duty. This Writ can be
issued against all the administrative actions which are unlawful in nature.
  The authority has many duties, some of which are mandatory and while
some are left at their discretion to be performed. Thus, if an authority does
not perform their mandatory duty, the Writ of Mandamus will be issued by
the Court. But in cases of discretionary duties, the writ cannot be issued but
the authority still has to act in good faith while deciding whether the
discretionary duty should be performed or not.

In the case of Vijaya Mehta v. State of Rajasthan , a petition was filed in the High
Court for compelling the State to perform its duty of appointing a commission to
look into the climate change and floods in the State. It was held by the Court that
the State Government would have to appoint a commission only when a resolution
was passed by the Legislature, moreover, it was a discretionary duty and not a
mandatory duty, so the Writ of Mandamus was not issued in this case.

In the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal , the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had given clear directions to the respondent Income
Tax Officer by its final order. The Income Tax Officer had still refused to carry out
the directions given by the Tribunal. It was held by the Supreme Court that the
Income Tax officer had a mandatory duty to fulfill the directions given by the
Tribunal and non-performance of which amounted to grave injustice. Thus, the Writ
of Mandamus was issued to direct the officer to carry out the directions of the
Tribunal.

When is Mandamus not allowed?

The Writ of Mandamus is a discretionary power of the Court and is not a right which
can be enforced by the petitioner therefore in many cases this Writ can be refused
by the Courts.

The Courts can refuse to issue these Writs in the following cases:

Where the right of the petitioner has lapsed

The duty has already been fulfilled by the authority against which such a Writ is
sought to be issued and therefore issuing the Writ would amount to nothing in such
a situation.

Who can apply for this Writ?

Usually, the person whose right is infringed is allowed to apply for the Writs of
Mandamus but after the Supreme Court adopted a liberal view and the advent of
Public Interest Litigation in India, a public-spirited citizen can also apply for the
issuing of the Writ of Mandamus on other people’s behalf.

In order to issue a Writ of Mandamus the following considerations are of great

importance:

The duty which is sought to be enforced is a public duty.

Such duty is enforceable by law.

In the case of Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhi Chand , it was held that Ratlam
Municipality was a statutory body which owed duties to the public such as removing
night soil and rubbish, removing any public nuisance etc. and therefore the Writ of
Mandamus was issued by the Court to enforce these duties by the Municipality.

Thus, an application for Mandamus can be made not only by the affected people but
also by those who want to enforce these Writs on behalf of others in the public
interest.

Certiorari
Certiorari is a different type of writ when compared with other Writs. This Writ is
corrective in nature which means the purpose of this Writ is to correct an error
which is apparent on the records.

Certiorari is a Writ which is issued by a superior court to an inferior court. This can
be issued when the superior court wants to decide a matter in the case itself or if
there is an excess of jurisdiction by the inferior court. This Writ can also be issued
when there is a fundamental error in the procedure followed by the inferior court or
if there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

If the superior court finds out that there has been a violation of natural justice or a
fundamental error on the procedure adopted, it can quash the order of that inferior
court.

Illustration: There is a case in the District Court and the court has no jurisdiction
to decide such cases. Still, the District Court Judge tries the case and gives his
decision and an application is made by A (the aggrieved party by such decision) to
the High Court. Hereby the power of issuing Writs, the High Court will issue a Writ
of Certiorari on the order of the District Court, as a result, the order of the District
Court will be quashed.

Grounds for Certiorari

The Writ of Certiorari can be issued on the following grounds:.

6. On the grounds of jurisdiction, a Writ can be issued by the superior court.

Whenever an inferior oversteps its jurisdiction or abuses the jurisdiction
provided to it or when there is an absence of jurisdiction of the inferior court,
the Writ will be issued to quash the order made by the inferior court.
7. The violation of principles of natural justice is another ground on which the
Writ of Certiorari can be issued by the court. The principles of natural justice
form an important part of the Indian Constitution as these principles have
been recognized by the Constitution such as the principle of Audi alterum
partem which means hearing of both the sides is an essential part of the
Indian Constitution.
8. When there is an error apparent on the record, it becomes a valid ground for
issuing the Writ of Certiorari. This Writ can be issued when the error is based
 on a clear disregard to the provisions of law and not merely because the
judgement was wrong.

Important Conditions for Certiorari

For the Writ of Certiorari the following conditions should be fulfilled:

9. The body or person has legal authority.

10. Such authority is related to determining those questions which affect the
rights of the people.
11. Such a body or person has a duty to act judicially in doing its functions.
12. Such a person or body has acted in excess of their jurisdiction or legal
authority.

When all these conditions are fulfilled, only then a Writ of Certiorari can be issued
against the body or person who has acted in excess of their jurisdiction.

Rule of Proceeding in Personam

In the cases related to the Writ of Certiorari, the person who is aggrieved by the
wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the court should bring the petition before the
superior court. In this regard, this Writ is different from the Writ of Habeas Corpus
as Habeas Corpus can be applied for even by a non-aggrieved person and the
courts will accept such an application.

The proceeding in case of Certiorari is an original proceeding before the superior

court which can be initiated by a petitioner before he High Court under Article 226
and before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

Against whom this Writ lies?

The Writ of Certiorari lies against those bodies which are judicial or quasi-judicial in
nature. Thus, when anybody or a person is performing a judicial act, their acts can
be subjected to the Writ of Certiorari.

It also means that the scope of the application of this Writ is limited to only the
judicial bodies or the bodies which perform judicial functions and it will not extend
to the Central, State or Local Governments because their functions are
administrative in nature and not judicial.

Quo Warranto
The Writ of Quo Warranto is issued by the courts against a private person when he
assumes an office on which he has no right. Quo Warranto literally means ‘by what
authority’ and it is an effective measure to prevent people from taking over public
offices.

Illustration: A who is a private citizen and has no qualifications for the post of
sub-inspector assumes such office. Here a Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued
against A to call into question his authority on which he has taken the control of the
office of sub-inspector.

The power to issue this Writ is discretionary on the courts and therefore nobody can
demand that the court is bound to issue this writ.

Conditions for issuing Quo Warranto

The Writ can be issued only when these conditions are fulfilled:

13. The office which has been wrongfully assumed by the private person is a
public office.
14. The office was created by the Constitution or by any other statute.
15. The nature of the duties which arises from this office is public.
16. The term of the office must be of a permanent nature and it should not be
terminable at any person or authority’s pleasure.
17. The person against whom the Writ is sought to be issued is in actual
possession of the office and is using such office.
18. This Writ can also be issued in those cases where a person was entitled to
hold the office earlier but after getting disqualified he is still in possession of
the office.
19. Thus in cases where the office is of private nature, this Writ cannot be issued
by the Court. This view was held by the court in the case of Niranjan Kumar
Goenka v. The University of Bihar, Muzzfarpur, in which the court observed
that the Writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued against a person who is not
holding a public office.

In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr. D Rama , an application for the
Writ of Quo Warranto was made by the petitioner in the Patna High Court against
the Working Committee of Bihar Raj Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha which was a
private body. The court refused to issue the Writ because it was not a public office.

Prohibition
The last Writ which can be issued under the Constitution is the Writ of Prohibition.
This Writ is not issued often and is an extraordinary remedy which a Superior Court
issues to an inferior court or tribunal for stopping them from deciding a case
because these courts do not have the jurisdiction.

If the court or tribunals does not have jurisdiction and it still decides the case, it will
be an invalid judgement because for an act to be legal it should have the sanction
of law. For e.g., if a District Court is hearing an appeal against the judgement of the
High Court, such an act is bound to be prohibited because the District Court does
not have the power to hear such an appeal. So, a Writ of Prohibition will be issued
against such an act of District Court.
Rules of Writ of Prohibition
In cases of Writ of Prohibition the following rules are observed:

The Writ can be issued only when:

20. The inferior court or tribunal has overstepped its jurisdiction

21. The court or tribunal is acting against the provisions of law
22. In cases where the court is partly acting within its jurisdiction and partly
outside it, the Writ will be issued against the act which is partly outside its
jurisdiction.
23. The fact that the applicant has a right to appeal against the order of the
inferior court will not be a bar to issue this Writ.
24. This Writ can be issued only when the proceedings are pending in the inferior
court and not when an order has already been passed by that court. Thus,
this Writ is a preemptive remedy which is exercised by the superior court to
prevent the inferior court from acting outside its jurisdiction.
25. The Writ of Prohibition can be issued only against a judicial or a quasi-judicial
body and it cannot be issued against any administrative body.

Difference between Prohibition and Certiorari

Both the Writs Certiorari and Prohibition appear to be the same but there is one
major difference between the two. In the Writ of Prohibition, the superior court
issues the writ before the final order is passed by the inferior court and therefore
this is a preventive remedy, while in Writ of Certiorari the superior court issues the
Writ after the inferior court has made the final order. Thus the Writ of Certiorari is a
corrective remedy by which the order of the inferior court is quashed.

Conclusion
The Constitution of India has provided the power to issue Writs to the Supreme
Court under Article 32 and to High Courts under Article 226. These Writs are a
command which is given by the Courts for the performance of an act to the public
authority which has a duty to perform it.

There are five types of Writs which are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo
Warranto and Prohibition and all these writs are an effective method of enforcing
the rights of the people and to compel the authorities to fulfil the duties which are
bound to perform under the law.

Of these Writs, the scope of Mandamus is the widest. While other Writs are issued
in certain circumstances only, such as when a person is illegally detained (Habeas
Corpus) or when there is overstepping of jurisdiction by a court (Certiorari),
Mandamus can be issued in those cases where there is on the performance of duty
the authority.

So, all these Writs have played a key role in enforcing the rights of the people and
have also improved the scope of the power judicial review of courts.
Writs in the Indian Constitution
Updated on : Apr 01, 2021 - 11:40:43 PM

A writ petition can be termed as a formal written order issued by a judicial authority
who possesses the authority to do so. The meaning of the word ‘Writs’ means
command in writing in the name of the Court. It is a legal document issued by the
court that orders a person or entity to perform a specific act or to cease performing a
specific action or deed. In India, writs are issued by the Supreme Court under Article
32 of the Constitution of India and by the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

Meaning of Writ
Fundamentally, a writ is a formal written order issued by anybody, executive or
judicial, authorised to do so. In modern times, this body is generally judicial.
Therefore, a writ can be understood as a formal written order issued by a Court
having authority to issue such an order. Orders, warrants, directions, summons etc.
are all essentially writs. A writ petition is an application filed before the competent
Court requesting it to issue a specific writ.

Writs under Indian Constitution

Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III of the Indian Constitution including the
right to equality, right to life and liberty etc. Merely providing for Fundamental
Rights is not sufficient. It is essential that these Fundamental Rights are protected
and enforced as well. To protect Fundamental Rights the Indian Constitution, under
Articles 32 and 226, provides the right to approach the Supreme Court or High Court,
respectively, to any person whose Fundamental Right has been violated. At the same
time, the two articles give the right to the highest courts of the country to issue writs
in order to enforce Fundamental Rights.

Kinds of writs
Articles 32 and 226 specifically provide for five kinds of writs. These writs are issued
in different circumstances and have different implications. They are:

Habeas Corpus
‘Habeas Corpus’ literally means “to have a body of”. This writ is used to release a
person who has been unlawfully detained or imprisoned. By virtue of this writ, the
Court directs the person so detained to be brought before it to examine the legality
of his detention. If the Court concludes that the detention was unlawful, then it
directs the person to be released immediately. Circumstances of unlawful detention
are:

 The detention was not done in accordance with the procedure laid down. For
instance, the person was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of
his arrest.
 The person was arrested when he did not violate any law.
 An arrest was made under a law that is unconstitutional.

This writ ensures swift judicial review of the alleged unlawful detention of the
prisoner and immediate determination of his right to freedom. However, Habeas
corpus cannot be granted where a person has been arrested under an order from a
competent court and when prima facie the order does not appear to be wholly illegal
or without jurisdiction.

This writ can be filed by the detained person himself or his relatives or friends on his
behalf. It can be issued against both public authorities and individuals.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980 AIR 1579) case, an application was made
to the Supreme Court through a letter written by a co-convict on the maltreatment
of the prisoners. This letter was taken up by the Supreme Court and it issued the writ
of habeas corpus stating that this writ can not only be used against illegal arrest of
the prisoner but also for his protection against any maltreatment or inhuman
behaviour by the detaining authorities.

In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling & Ors. (1974 AIR 510) case, the
Supreme Court held that rather than focusing on the defined meaning of Habeas
Corpus, i.e. produce the body, there should be a focus on the examination of the
legality of the detention by looking at the facts and circumstances of the case. It
stated that this writ is a procedural writ and not a substantive writ. This case dealt
with the nature and scope of the writ of habeas corpus.

Mandamus
‘Mandamus’ means ‘we command’. It is issued by the Court to direct a public
authority to perform the legal duties which it has not or refused to perform. It can be
issued by the Court against a public official, public corporation, tribunal, inferior
court or the government. It cannot be issued against a private individual or body, the
President or Governors of States or against a working Chief Justices. Further, it
cannot be issued in the following circumstances:

 The duty in question is discretionary and not mandatory.

 For the performance of a non-statutory function.
  Performance of the duty involves rights of purely private nature.
 Where such direction involves violation of any law.
 Where there is any other remedy available under the law.

The writ of mandamus is issued for keeping the public authorities within their
jurisdiction while exercising public functions. The object of mandamus is the
prevention of disorder emanating from failure of justice that is required to be
granted in all cases where there is no specific remedy established in law. It cannot be
issued when the government or public official has no duty to perform under the law.

A writ petition seeking mandamus must be filed by a person in good faith and who
has an interest in the performance of the duty by the public authority. The person
seeking mandamus must have a legal right to do so and also must have demanded
the performance of the duty and it is refused by the authority.

In All India Tea Trading Co. v. S.D.O. (AIR 1962 Ass 20) case, the Land Acquisition
Officer erroneously refused to pay the interest on compensation amount. A writ of
mandamus was issued against the Land Acquisition Officer directing him to
reconsider the application for the payment of interest.

In Suganmal v. State of M.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1740) case, the petitioner (person who
files the writ petition) filed for issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent
(opposite party in the writ) for refunding tax. The Supreme Court held that where an
assessment order was set aside and the rules concerned did not provide for refund
of tax levied, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. The proper remedy is filing a suit
for claiming the refund.

Quo Warranto
‘Quo Warranto’ means ‘by what warrant’. Through this writ, the Court calls upon a
person holding a public office to show under what authority he holds that office. If it
is found that the person is not entitled to hold that office, he may be ousted from it.
Its objective is to prevent a person from holding an office he is not entitled to,
therefore preventing usurpation of any public office. It cannot be issued with
respect to a private office.

The writ can be issued only when the following conditions are fulfilled:

 The public office is wrongfully assumed by the private person.

 The office was created by the constitution or law and the person holding the
office is not qualified to hold the office under the constitution or law.
 The term of the public office must be of a permanent nature.
 The nature of duties arising from the office must be public.

In Kumar Padma Padam Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1213) case, Mr K.N.
Srivastava was appointed as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court by the President of
India by a warrant of appointment under his seal. A petition was filed for issuing a
writ of quo-warranto contending that Mr K.N. Srivastava was not qualified for the
office. It was held by the Supreme Court that since Mr K.N. Srivastava was not
qualified, quo warranto could be issued and accordingly the appointment of Mr K.N.
Srivastava was quashed.

In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr D Rama (AIR 1954 Pat. 297) case, the
petitioner filed an application for issuing the writ of Quo Warranto against the
Working Committee of Bihar Raj Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha, which was a private
body. The High Court of Patna refused to issue the writ of Quo Warranto because it
was not a public office.
Certiorari
‘Certiorari’ means to ‘certify’. Certiorari is a curative writ. When the Court is of the
opinion that a lower court or a tribunal has passed an order which is beyond its
powers or committed an error of law then, through the writ of certiorari, it may
transfer the case to itself or quash the order passed by the lower court or tribunal. A
writ of certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court or High Court to the subordinate
courts or tribunal in the following circumstances:

 When a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction or by assuming jurisdiction

where it does not exist, or
 When the subordinate court acts in excess of its jurisdiction by way of
overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or
 When a subordinate court acts in flagrant disregard of law or rules of
procedure, or
 When a subordinate court acts in violation of principles of natural justice
where there is no procedure specified.

Prohibition
A writ of prohibition is issued by a Court to prohibit the lower courts, tribunals and
other quasi-judicial authorities from doing something beyond their authority. It is
issued to direct inactivity and thus differs from mandamus which directs activity.

It is issued when the lower court or tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction
or in violation of rules of natural justice or in contravention of fundamental rights. It
can also be issued when a lower court or tribunal acts under a law that is itself ultra
vires.

The difference between the writ of certiorari and prohibition is that they are issued
at different stages of proceedings of the case. The writ of certiorari is issued after the
case is heard and decided. It is issued to quash the decision or order of the lower
court when the lower court passed an order without or in excess of jurisdiction.
Whereas, the writ of prohibition is issued prohibiting the proceedings in the lower
court which acts without or in excess of jurisdiction while the case is pending before
it.

Who can file a writ petition?

A writ petition can be filed by any person whose Fundamental Rights have been
infringed by the State. Under a Public Interest Litigation, any public-spirited person
may file a writ petition in the interest of the general public even if his own
Fundamental Right has not been infringed.

Where can a writ petition be filed?

Under Article 32, a writ petition can be filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court can issue a writ only if the petitioner can prove that his Fundamental Right has
been infringed. It is important to note that the right to approach the Supreme Court
in case of a violation of a Fundamental Right is in itself a Fundamental Right since it is
contained in Part III of the Constitution.

Under Article 226, a writ petition can be filed before any High Court within whose
jurisdiction the cause of action arises, either wholly or in part. It is immaterial if the
authority against whom the writ petition is filed is within the territory or not. The
power of the High Court to issue a writ is much wider than that of the Supreme
Court.

The High Court may grant a writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for
any other purpose such as violation of any statutory duties by a statutory authority.
Thus, a writ petition filed before a Supreme Court can be filed against a private
person too. Where a fundamental right has been infringed, either the Supreme Court
or the High Court can be resorted to.

It is not necessary to go to the High Court first and only thereafter approach the
Supreme Court. However, if a writ petition is filed directly in the Supreme Court, the
petitioner has to establish why the High Court was not approached first.

Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so