INTRO, MEANING, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF WRITS:

The expression "writ" has not been defined in the Constitution. However, it is "a formal order in writing
issued under seal, in the name of a sovereign, government, court or other authority commanding an
officer or other person to whom it is issued to do or refrain from doing some act specified therein".

Prerogative Writs – Prerogative writs are writs which were originally issued only at the suit of the King
but which were later on made available to the subjects also. They were called "prerogative" because
they were conceived as being intimately connected with the rights of the Crown. A prerogative writ was
issued only on probable cause being shown to the satisfaction of the court that why extraordinary power
of the crown is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant.

ENGLAND –

Under English law, there are two types of writs:

(1) Judicial procedural writs, such as, writ of summons, writ of motion, etc., which are issued as a matter
of course

(2) Substantive writs, often described as "High Prerogative Writs", such as, writ of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto, etc.

Habeas Corpus: The writ of habeas corpus-cum-causa made its appearance in the early years of the
fourteenth century. It not merely commanded the Sheriff to "have the body'" of the person therein
mentioned like its predecessor but added the words "with the cause of the arrest and detention".

Mandamus: The writ of mandamus is a high prerogative writ of a most extensive remedial nature, and is,
in form, a command issuing in the King's name from the High Court of Justice and directed to any
person, corporation or inferior court or tribunal, requiring him or it to do a particular thing specified in it
which appertains to his or its office and is in the nature of public duty.

Prohibition: A writ of prohibition is a writ directed to an inferior court or tribunal forbidding such court
or tribunal from continuing proceedings in excess of its jurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the
land. Originally this writ was used only by the King's Bench to limit the jurisdiction of the Eccleciastical
Courts, but later on, it was used by the Common Law Courts as a useful weapon in their battles with the
Chancery Courts which were more closely associated with the Crown.

Certiorari: A writ of certiorari is a writ directing an inferior court or tribunal, requiring the record of the
proceedings in some cause or matter, to be transmitted into the Court of the King's Bench Division. The
writ of certiorari is so named because in its original form it required that the King should be "certified of"
the proceedings.

Quo warranto: Quo warranto means "by what authority". The writ of quo warranto can be issued
against the holder of a public office. The writ calls upon him to show to the court under what authority
he holds the office. If the holder has no authority to hold the office, he can be ousted from its
enjoyment.

Obsolute Writs -
Evocation: A writ of evocation is want or frequently used by Canadian Courts where there is excess of
jurisdiction, violation of rules of natural statute justice or where the under which writ of certiorari.45
proceedings were taken is unconstitutional.

Procedendo: The writ of procedendo was used by Chancery courts to compel inferior courts and
tribunals to proceed to judgment and to restore jurisdiction. It was thus opposite of the writ of
prohibition.

Ad quod damnum: The writ of ad quod damnum was a writ of right and was issued when a landholder
was dissatisfied with the assessment of damages by a Condemnation Commission.

Restitution: This writ was issued to restore a party to the possession of property of which he had been
wrongfully deprived by a writ or order of the same court.

INDIA –

The English system of administration of justice was quite unknown in India till the advent of the East
India Company which established what were called Mayor's Courts at Madras, Bombay and Fort William
in Bengal by authority of the Charter of 1726. In pursuance of the Regulating Act, 1773 Supreme Court
was established at Calcutta. the Supreme Court was empowered to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari
precedendo, and error, to be directed to such courts or Magistrates. The Supreme Courts in Bombay,
Madras and Calcutta were later replaced by the High Courts in those three Presidency Towns by the
Indian High Courts. But the power to issue the prerogative writs was restricted to the ornginal
jurisdiction of those three High Courts.

Write above 5 writs

Conclusion: The language of Article 32(2) as well as Article 226(1) is very wicds High powers conferred
on the Supreme Court under Article 32 and on th Courts under Article 226 are much wider and not
confined to issu prerogative writs referred therein. Apart from the fact that both the Articlee ure
"inclusive" in nature, the Founding Fathers of the Constitution have signedly couched them in
comprehensive phraseology. Ine courts may issue writs in the these nature of prerogative writs as
understood in England. But the scope of theo writs is widened by the use of the expression "nature". The
phrase "in the nature of" is not the same as "of the nature of". The former emphasises the essential
nature while the latter is content with mere similarity.

AGAINST WHOM WRIT LIES?

The language of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is very wide and the powers of the Supreme
Court as well as of all the High Courts in India extend to issuing directions, orders or writs "including'
writs 'in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari as may be
considered necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights and in the case of the High Courts, for
other purposes as well. Under Article 226, every High Court has power to issue directions, orders or
writs to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within the territories in
relation to which it exercises Unlike jurisdiction. Article 226(1), Article 32 does not specify the persons or
authorities to whom the writ may issue. In spite of this difference in phraseology, there is material no
difference between these two Articles as regards the persons ana authorities to whom the writs may be
issued.

STATE - Ordinarily, a wit will lie against the State, statutory bodies and persons charged with Public
Duties. a writ lies against the *State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. State under Article 12
includes - the Government and Parliament of India; the State Government and the Legislature; all local;
and Other Authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India

WRIT AGAINST GOVT. - Khajoor Singh v. Union of India - In applications for writs against the
Government, the Government is not in any way a favoured litigant and like other litigants, it is also
bound to comply with the normal procedure to be adopted in legal proceedings, such as filing of
affidavits, etc. to meet with allegations in the petition.

WRITS AGAINST LEGISLATURE – 2G Reference case - Article 12 defines the 'State' as including the
legislature of such State, and so. prima facie, the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226(1)
can, in a proper case, be exercised even against the legislature. If an application is made to the High
Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, it would not be competent to the House to raise a
preliminary objection that the High Court has no jurisdiction

WRIT AGAINST JUDICIARY –

Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar - It was contended that there was a violation of fundamental right of
Article 14 by the Judiciary inasmuch as appellant was tried by a Magistrate and not by a Court of
Sessions. The discretion of judicial officers is not arbitrary and the law provides for revision by superior
courts of orders passed by the subordinate courts. In such circumstances, there is hardly any ground for
apprehending any capricious discrimination by judicial tribunals.

Uijam Bai v. State of U.P - By wrongly interpreting a tax notification, court imposed tax which was
challenged by the petitioner. An error of law or fact committed by a judicial body cannot in general be
impeached otherwise than on appeal unless the erroneous determination relates to a matter on which
the jurisdiction of that body depends.

Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra – Writ was filed against the order of court allowing Defending
witness to give evidence in private (in camera). The court held that a Judge has inherent power to hold a
trial in camera if he is satisfied that in no other way justice can be done. Even assuming that the order
holding a trial in camera is wrong, it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. At the most, it was in the
mistaken exercise of jurisdiction. That order can be questioned only by filing an appeal or revision, but
there is no question of violation of fundamental rights in it.

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak – SC directed the transfer of case from Special Judge to Single Judge of HC.
This direction was challenged in a writ. preme Court transferring the case from the Special Judge of the
High Court. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the direction issued by the Supreme
Court earlier transferring the case from the Special Judge of the High Court was illegal, invalid and
inoperative and can be set aside by the Supreme Court. A majority held that an order of the court, be it
administrative or judicial, against the provisions of the Constitution or violative of the principles of
natural justice, can always be remedied by the court.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra – An earlier case between same parties was challenged in this case
under Art. 32. The Court held that the Supreme Court has power to reconsider its earlier decisions to do
complete Justice between the parties and to cure gross miscarriage of justice. That can be done by
entertaining a 'curative petition' under its inherent power.

WRIT AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITY - Union of India v. R.C. Jain – DDA was held to be local authority.
Local authority means a Municipal Committee, District Board or other authorities legally entitled by the
Government with the control or management of a municipal fund. According to the Court, an authority,
in order to be a local authority, must possess certain chracteristics and attributes. It must be legally
entitled to or entrusted by or the Government with, the control and management of a municipal local
fund. It must have a separate legal existence as a corporate body.

WRIT AGAINST ANY PERSON - Sohanlal v. Union of India - Normally a writ of mandamus does not issue
to is not made against a private individual. Such an order Is made against a person directing him to do
some particular thing specified in the order, which appertains to his office and is in the nature of a public
duty.

This, however, does not mean that under no circumstances, a writ would lie gainst a private person. In
appropriate cases, a writ can be issued against "any person". In Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind
Cycles Ltd., a writ was issued against an arbitrator appointed.

Gattiah v. Commr. of Labour - An order of retrenchment of employees was passed by a private company.
It was challenged by the employees by filing a petition under Article 226 contending that the action was
in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Negativing the contention of
the company regarding non-maintainability of the petition, the court observed that under Article 226, a
writ would lie not merely against a governmental authority, but also against any person. It is not the
body that matters, but it is the nature of the duty that is important.

LOCUS STANDI

Locus standi asks the question whether the must petitioner is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the
court. The traditional rule in regard to locus standi was that judicial redress was available only to a
person who had suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legally protected
interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person. Thus, as a general
rule, whose fundamental right had been infringed could apply to the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Categories of Persons - In the context of locus standi, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of the
following three categories; i) person aggrieved; (ii) stranger; and (i) busybody or meddlesome interloper.

The persons in the third category are easily distinguishable from the first two. They interfere in things
and matters which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice.

Person Aggrieved - It is said that in order to have locus standi to file a petition, the petitioner should be
an aggrieved person. a person can be said to be aggrieved by an order which is to his detriment,
pecuniary or otherwise or cause him some prejudice in one form or other. A person aggrieved has been
understood to mean one "who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which
prejudicially affects his interests".
Person Aggrieved V/S Person affected V/S Person Affected -

Person Aggrieved - A man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been
pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something.

Person Affected - a person who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received had some
other order been-made.

Person Interested - a person who has purchased the property subsequent to the filing of the petition
may, at the most, can be said to be a 'person interested' but not a person aggrieved inasmuch as no right
or title to the property vested in him on the date of filing of the petition. He, therefore, has no locus
standi to move the court.

Jashbhai Motibhai v. Roshan Kumar - the expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and to some
extent elusive concept. The concept cannot be confined in a strait jacket. Threefold test: Whether the
applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury?
Whether he has sufficient interest in the matter?

Charanjit Lal v. Union of India - In order to justify relief through writ, the complainant's need of it and
the absence of an adequate remedy at law must clearly appear. The complainant cannot succeed
because someone else may be hurt. Nor does it make any difference that other persons who may be
injured are persons of the same race or occupation. It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the
complainant not to others, which justifies judicial interference.

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India - a preliminary objection about the locus standi of the petitioners who were
practising lawyers was raised. Observing that petitioners being lawyers had sufficient interest to
challenge the constitutionality of the circular letter issued by the Law Minister.

Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrina Das - rape was committed on a woman by railway employees in
a building that belonged to railways. A writ petition filed by a practising advocate for compensation to
the victim was held maintainable. Court observed that the petition is in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner advocate has locus standi to approach the Court.

PIL and Locus Standi - Where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class
of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right without authority of law or any such
legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of
persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or disadvantaged position, unable to
econemically approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an
appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 & Article 32 seeking judicial
redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of Where the weaker
persons.

Conclusion - A person aggrieved has locus standi to file a petition. A person can be said to have been
aggrieved if he has a genuine grievance against the order which has been passed or if the said order has
adversely affected him. It is, however, not necessary that he must be a party to the proceeding wherein
the said order was passed.
PURPOSES FOR WHICH WRIT MAY BE ISSUED:

1. Enforcement of Fundamental Rights:

• Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of
Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.

• Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue various writs, including habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, based on their appropriateness, for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

• Article 32(3) allows Parliament to confer, by law, similar powers on any other court within its
local jurisdiction for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

• Article 32(4) declares that the right guaranteed by Article 32 (to move the Supreme Court for
enforcement of Fundamental Rights) cannot be suspended except as provided otherwise in the
Constitution.

2. Fundamental Right to Move the Supreme Court: The right to move the Supreme Court under
Article 32 is itself a fundamental right.

3. Court's Obligation to Protect Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court is constituted as the
protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights. It is the duty and obligation of the Supreme
Court to entertain applications seeking protection against the infringement of Fundamental
Rights.

4. Responsibility of the Supreme Court: It is not only the right and power but also the duty and
obligation of the Supreme Court to ensure the protection and safeguarding of the petitioner's
Fundamental Rights if a violation is established.

5. Judicial Review of Legislation: The Court has the responsibility to conduct a judicial review of
legislation that is challenged as violative of Fundamental Rights.

6. Substance Over Form: The Court must look beyond the mere appearance of legislation and
examine its real effect or operation on Fundamental Rights. The substance of the legislation is of
primary importance.

7. Guarding Against Encroachments: The Court must be vigilant in protecting citizens'

8. Striking Down Unconstitutional Restrictions: The Court has the authority to strike down
restrictions on Fundamental Rights, especially when they reach the magnitude of total
annihilation of the right. The purpose and means of legislation are crucial considerations in this
assessment.

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

Supreme Court - The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution are not
circumscribed by any territorial limitation. It extends not merely over every authority within the territory
of India but also those functioning outside, the country, provided that such authorities are under the
control of the Government of India.

High Courts - Article 226 as it originally stood had two-fold limitations on the jurisdiction of High Courts
with regard to their territorial jurisdiction. Firstly, the power could be exercised "throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises Jurisdiction", that is to say, the writs issued by the court
cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom
the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be "within those territories, which clearly implied
that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories.

Venkata Rao (Madras view) - In this case, the petitioner applied to the High Court of Madras under
Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition restraining the Election Commission having its
office permanently located at New Delhi. The High Court of Madras issued such a writ. It was, therefore,
held by the High Court of Madras that the position was analogous the court exercising jurisdiction over
persons outside the limits of its jurisdiction provided the cause of action arose within those limits.

Venkata Rao (Supreme Court view) – Overruled Madras view and held that the rule that cause of action
attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issuable under
Article 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action or where it arises but insists on the
presence of the person or authority 'within the territories' in relation to which the High Court exercises
jurisdiction.

The net effect of the above decision was that no High Court other than the High Court of Delhi after the
constitution of that High Court had jurisdiction to issue any direction, order or writ to the Union of India,
because the seat of the Government of India was located in New Delhi. That situation caused great
hardship and inconvenience to the persons residing far away from Delhi even if they were aggrieved by
some order passed by the Union of India and even if their grievance was well founded.

Doctrine of Merger - Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co. - an order of confiscation was
passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta which was confirmed by the Central Board of Revenue. A
petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Calcutta. a preliminary
objection was raised by the department relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkata Rao
that since the Central Board of Revenue was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of
Calcutta, no writ could be issued against it. The court held that High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a
writ against the Central Board of Revenue in view of the decision in Venkata Rao. Further, on the
question of dismissal of appeal by Revenue Board, Central Board of Revenue had merely dismissed the
appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the really operative order was of the
original authority which was situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, it had
jurisdiction to pass an order against the Collector of Customs in spite of the fact that that order had been
taken in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue to which no writ could be issued.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could have jurisdiction to issue a
writ against the Collector of Customs, Calcutta in spite of the fact that his order was taken in appeal to
the Central Board of Revenue against which the High Court could not issue a writ. The Supreme Court
also noted that there was difference of opinion amongst various High Courts. One view was that where
the original authority passing the order was within the jurisdiction of the High Court but the appellate
authority was not within such jurisdiction, the High Court would still have jurisdiction to issue a writ to
the original authority, where the appellate authority had merely dismissed the appeal since the effect of
the dismissal of the appeal would mean that the order of the original authority stood confirmed without
any modification whatsoever. But the other view was that even when the appeal was merely dismissed,
the order of the original authority gets merged in the order of the appellate authority, and if the
appellate authority was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, no writ could be issued even
to the authority.

After 15th Amendment – In above decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the cause of action was
not at all relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on High Courts under Article 226 as it
originally stood. The attempt to import the said concept by certain High Courts was repelled by the
Supreme Court. The only remedy according to the Supreme Court was amendment in the Constitution
and accordingly by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. The said amendment inserted the
phrase “High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholy or in part, arises”

Object of amendment - Under the existing Article 226 of the Constitution, the only High Court which has
jurisdiction with respect to the Central Government is the Punjab High Court. This involves considerable
hardship to litigants from distant places. It is, therefore, proposed to amend Article 226. So that when
any relief is sought against any Government, authority or person for any action taken, the High Court
within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate
directions, orders or writs.

Types of Writs:

Habeas Corpus –

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla: Emergency and Art. 32

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration: Torture in Prison

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra: custodial violence to women prisoners in the police lock-up

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI: Poor condition of quarry workmen in Rajasthan and MP. Rule Nisi was
introduced – other party has to show why writ shall be allowed

Mandamus –

Zee Telefilms v. UOI – Whether BCCI is State?

Chiranjeet Lal Choudhary v. UOI – Whether mandamus lie against legislature? No, because law making is
a essential but discretionary function and the court cannot deal with the constitutionality of laws under
writ of mandamus

State of WB v. Nasrudding Malik – Court cannot command any body to perform any discretionary
function under mandamus
State of Maharashtra v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabaha – If a body does not fulfil a statutory duty then
mandamus can be issued