Introduction
- Writs are legal instruments designed to protect the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
- They are formal written orders from a court, directing specific actions or prohibiting certain activities.
- The Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32, while High Courts have the power under Article 226.
- These tools ensure the enforcement of constitutional rights, acting as checks on the abuse of power.
- Writs can be issued in the form of orders, directions, or commands.
- A person whose rights are violated can file a writ petition with the appropriate court.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul of the Constitution.”
Types of Writs
- Habeas Corpus
- Meaning: “You may have the body.”
- Ensures protection against unlawful detention, compelling the authority to present the detained person before the court.
- If the detention is found illegal, the court can order immediate release.
- It cannot be used if detention is backed by a lawful authority.
- This writ is crucial in upholding the right to personal liberty.
- Can be sought by the detained individual or by their family/friends.
Conditions:
- Detained person not presented before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- Detention under an unconstitutional law.
- Arrest without legal cause.
Case Laws:
- R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. (2006): The writ was used to address conditions in children’s homes.
- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964): Reinforced the right to personal liberty, limiting state surveillance.
- Mandamus
- Meaning: “We command.”
- Directs a public authority to fulfill its duties.
- Filed by individuals whose legal rights are being denied by public officials.
- Can be issued against government bodies, tribunals, or public corporations.
- It’s not applicable to private individuals, the President, or Governors.
Exceptions:
- Discretionary duties, non-statutory functions, private rights, or where alternative remedies exist.
Case Laws:
- Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India (2012): Highlighted that the writ cannot be issued when alternative legal remedies exist.
- P.U.C.L. v. Union of India (2003): Clarified the scope of mandamus in public interest matters.
- Certiorari
- Meaning: “To be informed.”
- Used to correct the errors of lower courts when they act beyond their jurisdiction.
- Allows the higher court to transfer a case to itself or quash a faulty decision.
- Applicable against administrative as well as judicial authorities after 1991.
- Not issued against private individuals.
Grounds:
- Lack of jurisdiction, procedural errors, or failure to follow natural justice.
Case Laws:
- State of Gujarat v. Raghav Bechar (1969): Set limits on when a certiorari writ can be issued.
- Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003): Clarified the power of courts under Articles 226 and 227 to issue certiorari.
- Quo Warranto
- Meaning: “By what authority.”
- Prevents an individual from holding a public office illegally.
- The court asks the official to justify their authority to hold that position.
- Not applicable to private roles or appointments.
Grounds:
- Unqualified individual occupying a public office.
- The office must have a statutory basis.
Case Laws:
- Shivaji Rao v. State of Maharashtra (1983): Emphasized the importance of statutory qualifications for holding public office.
- Ashok Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2000): Discussed the applicability of this writ to university appointments.
- Prohibition
- Meaning: “To forbid.”
- Stops a lower court or tribunal from overstepping its jurisdiction.
- Unlike mandamus, it prohibits action rather than compelling it.
- Aimed at preventing jurisdictional overreach by subordinate courts.
- Not applicable to administrative bodies, legislative actions, or private entities.
Conditions:
- Exceeding authority, procedural violations, using invalid laws, or violating legal rights.
Case Laws:
- East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1962): Clarified that prohibition is available only before a lower court’s decision.
- S. Govind Menon v. Union of India (1967): Addressed the limits of judicial intervention through prohibition.