Writs in Indian Constitution - Drishti Judiciary

Writs

« »

Writs are constitutional remedies designed to look after the violation of fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the constitution.
It is a written order in the forms mentioned in the constitution.
It is an order to do a particular thing or stop from doing it.
It can be issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and under 226 by the High Court.
These are the remedies entrusted by the constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
It can be in the form of orders, warrants, directions, summons, etc.
The aggrieved person applies for issuance of a writ through presenting a writ petition before the competent authority.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar remarked Article 32 as the heart and soul of the constitution.

The literal meaning of Habeas Corpus is “to have the body”.
The objective of this writ is to remove a person from unlawful detention or custody.
The court orders that person before it to inquire into the legitimacy of the detention.
The competent court orders the release of the person in custody if it finds it arbitrary.
The cardinal principle of this writ is the right to freedom.
The writ cannot be invoked if the order to arrest the person from competent authority seems under jurisdiction and prima facie legal.
The writ can be issued against public authorities and individuals.
The writ of Habeas Corpus can be filed by the detained person, his family or friends.

There are three major conditions upon which this writ can be issued:

The detained person is not presented before the magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.
The arrest was made under an unconstitutional law.
The person was arrested without any violation of the law.

Case Laws

In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980), an application in the form of a letter was filed before the apex court by a prisoner in the place of his prison inmate stating the manhandling by the jail officials. The apex court issues the writ of Habeas Corpus upon the application which clarified that the writ is not only available against wrongful detention but for the protection against indecent behavior during the period of detention.
In the matter of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), it was held that Article 21 can be restricted by the state. The case is known as the darkest judgment in history. It is also known as the habeas corpus case

Mandamus

The literal meaning of mandamus is “we command”
The court issue is the form of a direction to public authority to perform a particular task.
It must be filed in good faith by the person having the legal right.
It can be issued against government, public officials, inferior courts, tribunals and public corporations.
It is issued against the public authority denying performing its duty or has failed to do so.
It cannot be issued against private individuals, President and Governors, and Chief Justice.

Exceptions

In the case of Union of India v. S.B. Vohraxi (2004), the Supreme Court upheld the exceptions denying the presenting of writ of mandamus on the exempted ground.
In the case of Suganmal v. State of M.P (1965), the apex court clarified that if an alternative legal remedy is available writ of mandamus cannot be invoked.

Certiorari

It stands for “to certify”
The writ can be issued when the court finds the decision of the lower court erroneous or beyond its authority.
It is used as curative writ petition
The court has the authority to take charge of the case by transferring it before itself or quashing the verdict of another inferior court.
Before 1991 the writ was only allowed to be issued against the judicial authority or quasi-judicial authority and not the administrative authority but post 1991 1it can be issued against the administrative authority as well.
It cannot be issued against private people.

Grounds

Procedure

Case Laws

In the case of Yekoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1965) the court stated that this writ cannot be invoked for appeal.
In the matter of Radhey Shyam and anr. v. Chhabi Nath and Ors. (2015) the court said that power under Article 227 cannot be used for writ filed under Article 226.

Quo warranto

Quo- warranto stands for “by what authority or warrant”
It is used by the court to stop the excessive use or abuse of authority
The court issues the writ to ask the public official to table his authority of holding that office, and court can suspend his authority.
It cannot be issued against private individuals.

Grounds

The writ of Quo warranto can be invoked against private office was held in the case of Amarendra Chandra v. Narendra Kumar Basu, (1951). The same ratio was decided in the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr D Rama (AIR 1954).
It was held in the case of University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao, (1963), that the public office must be of a statutory nature to issue the writ of Quo warranto.

Prohibition

It stands for “to forbid”
Th writ aims to stop the judicial, quasi-judicial authorities along with tribunals from exceeding their authority.
It works opposite to mandamus as it directs the authority to prohibit any activity.
The higher court can issue this against the lower court.
The objective to direct the inactivity is to prevent the excessive application of one’s jurisdiction.
It cannot be invoked against legislative bodies, administrative bodies and private individuals.

Conditions

In the case of Hari Vishnu v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque (1955) it was held by the court that this writ can be issued only when the decision has not been given by the court.
Writ cannot be issued after the execution of the order was confirmed in the case of Prudential Capital Markets Ltd v. The State of A.P. and others, (2000).