WRIT JURISDICTION

A writ is a directive issued by the Supreme Court and high Courts in India to carry out their
directives for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and/or legal rights of the affected
persons. The Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 of the Constitution while the
High Courts can issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ARTICLE 32
 No territorial jurisdiction
 Only for enforcement of fundamental rights

ARTICLE 226
 Has territorial jurisdiction
 For enforcement of fundamental rights and other rights

The writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is wider as they can issue rights to enforce both
fundamental rights and other legal rights, but the writs issued by the Supreme Court are
applicable throughout the territory of India. The writs issued by the High Courts are only
valid within the territory under the authority of the High Court or where the cause of action
arose.

If your right is violated, you have the right to move the court, but not to get a remedy. The
remedy is discretionary.

Types of Writs

Habeas Corpus

Literal meaning: ‘to have the body of’

It is issued against both public and private persons to produce the body of a person who has
been unlawfully detained. It acts as bulwark against illegal detention.

The principles of res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus. With habeas corpus, you have
the liberty to withdraw and file afresh. However, the principles of res judicata apply to other
writs.

CASES:

1. ADM Jabalpur v Shiv Kant Shukla (Habeas Corpus case): A five-judge bench was
constituted and with majority ruled against habeas corpus, permitting unrestricted powers of
detention during emergencies.
2. Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate: The court held that habeas corpus was essentially a
procedural writ dealing with the machinery of justice. The object underlying the writ was to
secure the release of a person who is illegally deprived of his liberty. An application for
habeas corpus can be made by any person on behalf of the prisoner as well as by the prisoner
himself. Physical confinement is not necessary to constitute detention. Control and custody
are sufficient legal necessities and technicalities are no impediments to the court entertaining
the writ of habeas corpus if the basic facts are found. The writ of habeas corpus cannot only
used for releasing a person illegally detained but it will be also used for protecting him from
inhumane treatment in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration and Ors.
ARTICLE 136 – SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

MANDAMUS

Literal meaning: ‘I command’

The writ of mandamus is a command issued by the court to a public official asking them to
perform their duties that they have failed to perform. It may also be issued against any public
body, corporation, inferior court, tribunal, or government for the same purpose. The writ of
mandamus cannot be issued against a private individual or body.

Circumstances under which the writ of mandamus can be issued:

a) The applicant must have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty. It will not
issue where to do or not to do an act is left to the discretion of the authority. It was
refused where the legal duty arose from an agreement which was in dispute. The duty
to be enforced by a writ mandamus could arise by a provision of the Constitution or
of a stature or of the common law.
b) The legal duty must be of a public nature. In The Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V.
Imanual and Sohanlal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that mandamus
might under ceratin circumstances lie against a private individual if it is established
that he has colluded with a public authority.
c) When the contractual right with a third party is interfered with by the State. Refer
Raman & Raman v. State of Madras and State of Assam v. Ajit Kumar
d) The right sought to be enforced must be subsisting on the date of the petititon. If the
interest of the petition has been lawfully terminated before that date, he is not entitled
to the writ.
e) As a general rule, mandamus is not issued in anticipation of injury. There are
exceptions to this rule. Anybody who is likely to be affected by the order of a public
officer is entitled to bring an application for mandamus if the officer acts in
contravention of his statutory duties.

PROHIBITION

Literal meaning: ‘To forbid’

This writ can be used under Article 227.

It is issued by a higher court to a lower court to prevent the latter from exceeding its
jurisdiction or taking over a jurisdiction that it did not possess in the first place. Therefore,
the writ of prohibition is the opposite action of mandamus insofar as mandamus directs
activity while prohibition directs inactivity.

The writ of prohibition can only be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and
not against administrative authorities, legislative bodies, and private individuals or bodies.

Fundamental grounds to file for certiorari:

a) The lower court must have exceeded its jurisdiction.
b) Violation of audi alteram partem
c) Article 32 must be used instead of Article 226 if there is no violation of fundamental rights.
d) Biased judge [Ridge v. Baldwin]
 e) Error of Law

CASES:
Bennett Coleman v. Union of India: The petitioners challenged that certain restrictions and regulations
on newspapers affected the right to freedom of speech and expression. They challenged the
restrictions on the import of newsprint under Import Order 1955, the regulation of sale, acquisition,
and use of newspaper under Newsprint Order 1962, and the direct regulation of size and circulation of
newsappaers under the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73. The Court found that ecause the freedom of the
press involved both qualitative and quantitative dimensions, the Newsprint Policy was
unconstitutional as its quantitative restrictions were not justified by a shortage of newsprint; the
Newsprint Order and Import Control Order were not struck down.

CERTIORARI

Literal meaning: ‘To be certified’

Certiorari is a command or order to an inferior Court or tribunal to transmit the records of a

cause or matter pending before them to the superior Court to be dealt with there and if the
order of inferior Court is found to be without jurisdiction or against the principles of natural
justice, it is quashed.

The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory one and in exercising it, the Court
is not entitled to act as a Court of appeal. That necessarily means that the findings of fact
arrived at by the inferior Court or tribunal are binding. An error of law apparent on the face
of the record could be corrected by a writ of certiorari, but not an error of fact; however grave
it may appear to be.

Unlike the writ of habeas corpus, the petition for certiorari should be by the person aggrieved,
not by any other person. The effect of the rule of personam is that if the person against whom
the writ of certiorari is issued does not obey it, he would be committed forthwith for
contempt of court.

Certiorari is an original proceeding in the superior Court. It has its origin in the court of issue
and therefore the petition in India is to be filed in the High Court under Article 226 or before
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

GROUNDS:
The writ of certiorari can be issued on the following grounds: -
1) Want of jurisdiction, which includes the following:
(a) Excess of jurisdiction.
(b) Abuse of jurisdiction
(c) Absence of jurisdiction.
2) Violation of Natural justice.
3) Fraud.
4) Error on the face of records.

CONDITIONS:
When any persons: -
(a) Having legal authority.
(b) To determine questions affecting rights of subjects,
(c) 
Having duty to act judicially,
(d) Acts in excess of their legal authority, writ of certiorari may be issued. Unless all these
conditions are satisfied, mere inconvenience or absence of other remedy does not create a
right to certiorari.

QUO WARRANTO

Literal meaning: ‘By what warrant?’

This writ is issued in order to enquire into the legality of authority of a person holding a
public office and to prevent illegal occupation of the office.

Quo warranto can only be issued in case of a substantive public office of a permanent
character created by a statute or by the Constitution. It cannot be issued in cases of ministerial
offices and private offices.

CASES:

1. Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr. D. Rama: The High Court of Patna refuse to issue the writ
of quo warranto against the members of the Working Committee of Bihar Raj Arya Samaj
Pratinidhi Sabha- a private religious association.

2. Niranjan Kumar Goenka v. The University of Bihar, Muzzafarpur: the Patna High Court held
that writ in the nature of quo warranto cannot be issued against a person not holding a public
office.