TOPICS

1. Public Interest Lawyering - All Basics and Developments in Public Interest Litigation
(PIL)
2. Locus Standi, Definitions and Cases in Public Interest
3. Legal Aid and Paralegal Services
4. General Exceptions to PIL
5. Writs and Their Applications
6. Prohibition and Certiorari
7. Habeas Corpus
8. Supreme Court Rules on PIL
A. Public Interest Lawyering - All Development and Basics

● Definition and Purpose: PIL is a legal mechanism aimed at making justice accessible to
marginalized individuals who are unable to represent themselves in court. It allows any
public-spirited individual to approach the court on behalf of those who are deprived,
focusing on the broader public interest rather than individual grievances.
● PIL is lawyering not advocacy because it is not limited to advocates but to any Public
spirited individual
● Origins and Key Figures: The conceptual foundation of PIL in India is largely attributed
to the pioneering work of Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice P. N. Bhagwati. Their visionary
jurisprudence has significantly shaped the landscape of public interest lawyering,
emphasizing the need to bring justice closer to the common man.
● Jurisprudential Shifts: The evolution of PIL marks a jurisprudential shift from
traditional individual-centric litigation to a broader focus on community welfare and
social justice. This transition has been facilitated through numerous case laws that
expanded the scope and accessibility of legal recourse for the marginalized.
● Public Interest vs. Personal Interest: PIL distinguishes itself by not serving mere
curiosity or individual interests but addressing issues affecting the community at large or
rights of a significant portion of the population.

Development and Jurisprudence -

(These points are like an overview in a proper flow for the development of PIL - imp. if a
question is asked on this specifically)
● 1970s : Early Milestones: Cases like Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai laid the
groundwork for PIL by advocating for a liberalized approach to locus standi, allowing
individuals and organizations to file petitions on behalf of those who are unable to do so
themselves.
● 1980s: Expansion of Scope: The 1980s saw a series of pivotal cases, such as S.P. Gupta v.
Union of India and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, which not
only underscored the importance of PIL in addressing wide-ranging public issues but also
established critical legal precedents for future litigation.
● Environmental Jurisprudence: The phase led by MC Mehta witnessed the integration of
environmental concerns into the PIL domain, with the courts taking suo moto cognizance
of environmental degradation and ecological imbalance, thereby broadening the horizon
of PIL beyond social welfare to include environmental justice.
● Letter Petitions: Recognizing the need for an inclusive legal system, the courts began to
accept letter petitions as valid forms of initiating PILs. This innovation significantly
lowered the barrier for entering the legal system, ensuring that justice was not denied due
to procedural technicalities.
All important cases-
- Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai AIR 1976 SC 1455
- Seeds of PIL in India were sown by this case by Justice Krishna Iyer
- Talked about Social Action Litigation in US
- Discussed that India shall liberalize locus standi to allow PIL
- Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchirya Sang v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 298
- Locus Standi was liberalized and a unregistered association was allowed to file a writ
petition under Art 32 for a common grievance.
- S. P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
- P. N. Bhagwati – First time PIL concept came into Indian context – justice will
move to the door steps to the people and any public-spirited individual can
approach
- Elusive Abstraction – PIL is this – General Social Welfare or regard for social
good
- Here, after the emergency which led to curtailing the fundamental rights of the
people, there was a need felt for PIL
- How is PIL different from general litigation?
- From here the answers started to come
- Locus Standi aspect came in
- Individual Right v. Restoration of Public Right
- The parties are not put against each other – the aim is welfare for the
common goal
- Firmly established the validity of the Public Interest Litigation For the first time
allowed filing of petition without locus standi
- Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473 – a.k.a
Asiad Labour Case - This established the Nature of PIL
- PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement
- It is a co-operative or collaborative effort
- Petitioner, State and Common People together take the collaborative effort
- Locus Standi was relaxed
- Letter considered for a writ petition.
- Mrs. Veena Seti v. State of Bihar – 1983
- The court treated a letter addressed to the judge by the free legal aid committee as
a writ petition.

On basis of all these case and points - the following Core principles are established
- Strategic Component of the Legal Aid Movement: PIL serves as a strategic extension of
the legal aid movement, designed to facilitate access to justice for those who have
traditionally been marginalized or excluded from the legal system. It represents a
deliberate effort to leverage the legal process as a tool for social change, ensuring that
 legal representation and judicial recourse are not limited to those with the resources to
afford them.
- Accessibility to Justice for the Underprivileged: One of the primary objectives of PIL is to
make justice accessible to the poor and marginalized masses. It aims to bridge the gap
between the law and those who are most in need of its protection but least capable of
navigating the legal system on their own. By focusing on the collective rights and welfare
of these communities, PIL seeks to uphold the principle of equality before the law.
- Distinction from Traditional Litigation: Unlike traditional litigation, which typically
revolves around the resolution of disputes between individual parties, PIL is not
concerned with the enforcement of a right pertaining to one individual against another.
Instead, it is characterized by its focus on matters of public concern and its pursuit of
justice in cases where the issues at stake affect the community or society at large.
- Cooperative and Collaborative Effort: PIL embodies a cooperative and collaborative
effort between the state, the judiciary, and civil society. It is a manifestation of a
collective endeavor to address and rectify social injustices, operating under the premise
that the legal system and governmental institutions have a shared responsibility to
promote the welfare of all citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable.

Nature of PIL -
1. It is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement
2. Intended to bring justice within the reach of poor masses
3. Different from traditional litigation
4. Brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing rights of one individual
against other.
5. PIL is a cooperative or collaborative effort or the state and the court to make
social justice available to the downtrodden sections of the society or the
community

● In the 80s the emergency era, rights were being violated at large, so judiciary felt that .
How PIL is different from traditional litigation? To differentiate, locus standi principle
emerged. PIL focuses on restoration of collective right. Parties are not pitied against each
other unlike traditional litigation.

Other Important Cases - (to be applied wherever required as per the question)
- Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of U.P. – 1983
o Letter by two professors to the court was assumed to be an application for PIL.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India – 1984
o Locus Standi Relaxed – Letter petition entertained.
 - Dr. D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar – AIR 1987
o Public Spirited Individual – a professor of political science
- M.C. Mehta v. Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industries - 1987
o Principle of Absolute Liability evolved from this case.
o Locus Standi was relaxed in the case also.
- Ratlam Municipal Council v. Shri Vardichand – AIR 1980 SC 1622
o Complaint filed by a resident taken to be a public interest petition.
- Kamalnath v. Union of India – 1997
o Public Trust Doctrine
o Kamalnath is a politician, and they were also participating in PIL.
- Mohan Lal Sharma v. State of U.P.
o Telegram was taken into consideration – it talked about atrocities by the police
in the lockup.
- Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan
- Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India – 2004
o Para was about nature of PIL – Definition of PIL - The court made it clear that
PIL means legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community
have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are effected – PIL should be allowed only for protection of human
rights involving social justice to the citizens. It should be aimed at redressal of
genuine public wrongs or public injury and not founded on personal vendetta
or as mere publicity stunt.
- Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra – 2005
o The SC cautioned that PIL Writ petitions are to be admitted with great care. It
is only for redressal of genuine public wrongs or injury and not for redressal
of private or political disputes. The court must not allow the process to be
abused.

Legal Definitions and Framework

● Oxford English Dictionary: Common well being or public welfare for enforcing a right
or seeking a remedy
○ How do you enforce a right?
■ First need to analyse where does the right come from? Does the right of
the person exist of not? – a statutory right, fundamental right,
constitutional right or legal right
■ Also explain diff. Between Legal Right and Constitutional Right - Legal
rights are granted to individuals by statutes or common law, while
constitutional rights are enshrined directly in a country's constitution,
offering fundamental protections against governmental actions.
 ■ Fundamental Rights are guaranteed by the constitution to all citizens of
India and are enshrined in Part III (Articles 12 to 35) of the Constitution.
Fundamental Rights represent the basic human rights that are recognized
and protected by the constitution, including the right to equality, the right
to freedom, the right against exploitation, the right to freedom of religion,
cultural and educational rights, and the right to constitutional remedies.
○ In the answer, Define Right itself – Anything which is protected is a right
○ Why is it right or seeking and not right and seeking
■ Because, suppose an event is happening against public interest and it is not
done yet, so enforcing of right will be done.
■ But if harm has been done, then remedy needs to be taken. – remedy is
mostly compensation, so without event done, no compensation can be
asked and only enforcement of rights can be done.
● Black’s Law Dictionary: is something in which the public or community at large has
some pecuniary interest or has any interest. But not something which is mere curiosity or
as the interest of particular communities which may be affected by the matters in question
○ Not so narrow as mere curiosity (PIL is not a pill for every ill) – first limitation of
a PIL – cannot be filed for mere curiosity
○ o Or as the interest of the particular localities which are effected by matter in
questions – hence, cannot be filed for locality or individual interest – shall be for
the community at large.
○ § But if locality has an issue and that issue effects the community at large, then
PIL can be done.
○ o It shall be in interest shared by citizens generally in local state and government
affairs

The admissibility of a PIL is contingent upon fulfilling certain criteria, which are as follows:
1. Action or Inaction: A PIL can be initiated in response to either an action or inaction by a
public or private entity that affects public interest. This encompasses decisions, policies,
or failures to act that have widespread implications.
2. Deprivation of Rights or Suffering of Wrong: The matter at hand must involve the
deprivation of rights or infliction of harm upon a significant number of people. This
condition underscores the collective nature of the issue, distinguishing PILs from
individual grievances or private disputes.
3. Enforcement or Redressal of Rights: The purpose of the PIL must be to enforce a right
or seek redressal for a wrong through judicial intervention. This entails petitioning the
appropriate court for relief or remedial action, aiming to correct injustices or restore
rights to the affected parties.
4. Representation by a Public-Spirited Entity: A PIL may be filed by an individual or an
organization acting out of public interest, rather than personal gain. This entity represents
 the interests of those adversely affected, advocating on behalf of the community or a
specific group that has suffered due to the action or inaction in question.
● The sine qua non - of PIL is – that the issue has to be for a public interest

Significance and Impact (Can write as a philosophical point)

● Social Justice and Legal Aid: PIL is seen as a strategic extension of the legal aid
movement, intended to bring justice to the poor and underserved populations by
liberalizing locus standi, thereby democratizing access to the courts for addressing public
wrongs and achieving social welfare.
● A Tool for Collective Welfare: Public Interest Lawyering, through PIL, represents a
collaborative effort between the judiciary, the state, and the community to safeguard and
advance the rights and interests of the broader society, ensuring that justice is not only
seen to be done but is also accessible to all, irrespective of socio-economic status.

Social Action Litigation in the United States

Social Action Litigation in the United States represents a significant and expansive field within
the legal industry, primarily characterized by its focus on legal actions intended to bring about
social change, protect public interests, and address issues affecting marginalized and
underrepresented communities. A notable aspect of Social Action Litigation is its funding model,
with the Council for Public Interest Law setup by the Ford Foundation standing out as a major
financial supporter. The Ford Foundation, a global organization dedicated to advancing human
welfare, has been instrumental in providing the necessary resources to fuel these legal battles.
This support has enabled a wide array of litigations that seek to challenge and rectify social
injustices, making Social Action Litigation not just a legal strategy but a substantial industry
aimed at fostering societal progress and equity. The involvement of organizations like the Ford
Foundation underscores the importance of philanthropic backing in sustaining efforts that might
otherwise lack the resources to confront large-scale social and legal challenges.
B. Locus Standi - Relaxation w.r.t PIL
1. Meaning given in Black’s Law Dictionary - Having suffered loss or injury; damnified;
Injured. – and this meaning has been re-affirmed by the SC in many Cases.
2. Historical Context: The historical context of locus standi originates from the era of
monarchic courts, where the right to petition for redress was primarily reserved for the
king through specific writs. These writs were exclusive prerogatives, signifying that only
the monarch could initiate certain legal actions. This system also implied that the general
public, when aggrieved, had the right to approach the king's court for justice, despite the
hierarchical barriers that made direct access to the monarch challenging. Furthermore,
decisions made by the king were final and beyond appeal, reinforcing the notion that only
those directly aggrieved could petition the court. This historical backdrop lays the
foundation for the modern principle of locus standi, which has evolved significantly,
especially with the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), expanding access to
justice beyond those directly affected to include public-spirited individuals and
organizations advocating on behalf of broader societal interests.
3. Traditional Requirement: Traditionally, locus standi required that only those directly
aggrieved by an action or inaction could approach the court for redressal. This concept
ensured that courts were not overwhelmed by frivolous lawsuits from parties not directly
affected by the issue at hand. However, this traditional requirement often barred the path
to justice for broader societal issues that affected large groups of people, many of whom
lacked the means to file a lawsuit.
4. Relaxation in PIL: The relaxation of locus standi in the context of PIL represents a
significant departure from traditional litigation. It acknowledges that certain issues
transcend individual grievances and affect society at large. By allowing public-spirited
individuals and organizations to file cases on behalf of those who are unable to do so
themselves, the judiciary has broadened access to legal remedies for systemic issues,
ranging from environmental degradation to human rights abuses.
5. Role in PIL Development: The relaxation of locus standi criteria has been instrumental in
the development and success of PIL in India. It has facilitated the emergence of a more
inclusive legal process, enabling concerned citizens and organizations to champion public
causes. This development reflects a judicial recognition of the need for a mechanism to
address grievances that affect the public at large, thereby enhancing the judiciary's role in
social justice and governance.
6. Case Laws: Several landmark cases have underscored the judiciary's willingness to relax
locus standi in PIL matters. For instance, the Supreme Court of India, in cases such as
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, recognized
the importance of allowing public-spirited individuals and NGOs to advocate on behalf of
those who are disadvantaged or have their rights infringed upon, thus setting a precedent
for future PILs. (write content of caselaws from above)
 7. Public Spirited Individuals: The concept of public-spirited individuals or organizations
filing PILs has democratized the legal process by allowing those with genuine concern
for the welfare of the community to take legal action. This approach has enabled the
representation of marginalized and underrepresented groups in the judicial process,
ensuring that the benefits of PIL are not confined to those with the financial means or
direct involvement in an issue, but are extended to society at large.
8. Art. 32 and 226 - The relaxation of locus standi criteria facilitated the emergence of Public
Interest Litigation (PIL), allowing for the filing of writ petitions under Article 226 in High Courts
(HC) and Article 32 in the Supreme Court (SC) of India. This development enables individuals to
approach the SC directly under Article 32 in cases of fundamental rights violations. For all other
legal rights, petitions can be filed under Article 226 in the HCs. In instances where alternative
remedies haven't been exhausted, the SC may direct parties to pursue those before approaching
the court through PIL. This structural mechanism within the Indian legal framework significantly
broadens the scope of judicial review and democratizes access to justice, ensuring that legal
remedies are not confined to individuals directly affected by an issue but are extended to address
wider public concerns.

The legal source from where relaxation of Locus Standi comes is Section 91 r/w 151 CPC

Flow for answer -

1. General Introduction
2. What has been the attitude of the courts? How liberal how strict?
3. Conflicting considerations
4. Traditional View in Indian Position, person aggrieved, flexibility of rule,
5. American
6. Locus standi and legitimate expectations
7. Locus standi and justiciability
Who can approach the court? V who can get the relief from the court?
Locus standi has no relation to justiciability i.e it does not give you the right to
claim relief from the court
8. Waiver of locus standi
9. Who may apply? And Exceptions
10. PIL
11. Concluding remarks
C. General Exceptions to Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Public interest litigation plays a crucial role in safeguarding public welfare, but certain types of
cases generally fall outside the purview of PILs. These exceptions are often established through
judicial pronouncements and guidelines:
1. Individual Grievances: Disputes concerning personal matters, such as landlord-tenant
conflicts or individual service issues within an organization, aren't considered PILs. These are
typically addressed through regular legal channels.
2. Service Matters and Benefits: Issues related to employment within an organization, such as
disputes over pensions or grievances concerning internal policies, wouldn't qualify as PILs.
These often involve personal concerns and established procedures within the organization or
relevant legal frameworks.
3. Routine Administrative Matters: Complaints against government departments or local
bodies regarding routine administrative matters wouldn't be considered PILs unless they involve
broader public interest concerns beyond specific individuals or situations.
4. Admission to Institutions: Petitions seeking admission to educational institutions or other
similar entities wouldn't fall under PILs. These have established procedures and designated
authorities to handle such matters.
5. Procedural Matters: Requests for expediting the hearing of cases already in the court system
wouldn't be considered PILs. Courts have established procedures for handling such matters
within the existing legal framework.
6. Frivolous or Malicious Petitions: Courts may dismiss petitions deemed frivolous or filed
with malicious intent, as they misuse the PIL system and waste valuable judicial resources.
7. Res Judicata: The principle of res judicata, meaning "a matter already judged," generally bars
PILs on issues already decided by a competent court in a final judgment. This prevents repetitive
litigation on the same issue and ensures finality in legal proceedings.
D. Basics of Writs
● Writs are Legal Instruments: They are formal written orders issued by a court. Writs
command constitutional protection for individuals against any actions or omissions by the
State, its agencies, and officials.
● Types of Writs: There are five primary writs - Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition,
Certiorari, and Quo Warranto, each serving a distinct purpose in protecting rights and
enforcing duties.
● Application Against Various Entities: Writs can be filed against the State, including the
government, legislature, judiciary, and public offices, ensuring the protection of
Fundamental Rights (FR) and Legal Rights (LR).
● Judiciary's Role: The judiciary itself falls under the purview of writ jurisdiction,
indicating that it can also be checked for encroaching upon people's fundamental rights.
● Protection of Rights: Primarily, writs function to safeguard individual rights, offering
remedies for their violation or enforcement, ensuring the State's power is exercised
lawfully.
● Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs
for enforcing Fundamental Rights, making it a protector of these rights. Article 226
empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for
any other purpose, providing a broader scope than Article 32. Direct Access to Supreme
Court: Article 32 allows individuals direct access to the Supreme Court for the protection
of their Fundamental Rights, making it a fundamental right itself. Wider Jurisdiction of
High Courts: Under Article 226, the jurisdiction of High Courts extends beyond
Fundamental Rights to "any other purpose," allowing them to address a broader range of
legal issues. Discretionary Relief: Both articles provide discretionary relief, meaning the
courts have the discretion to issue writs based on the merits of each case, ensuring justice
is served in the most appropriate manner.
E. Prohibition and Certiorari (Judicial Writs)

Prohibition
Prohibition is designed to stop courts, tribunals, officers, or individuals from exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial powers not legally granted to them. It serves as a judicial safeguard, ensuring
that entities do not overstep their jurisdictional boundaries.
​ Nature and Scope: Judicial and preventive, aimed at restraining unauthorized judicial or
quasi-judicial actions.
​ Objective: To prevent jurisdictional overreach and ensure entities do not exercise powers
beyond their legal mandate.
​ Historical Development: Rooted in ensuring the proper distribution and exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial powers.
​ Grounds for Issuance:
● Absence or excess of jurisdiction.
● Violation of natural justice principles.
● Unconstitutionality of a statute.
● Infringement of fundamental rights.

Certiorari
History
The writ of certiorari has a long-standing history, originating in England as early as the 13th
century, serving the same purposes it does today. Initially known as the writ of error, it was
predominantly utilized in the criminal side of litigation. By the 17th century, it evolved into a
general remedy for judicial review. In India, the Supreme Court of Calcutta was the first to
employ the writ, following the charter of 1774, which was the first legal instrument to empower
the court to issue the writ of certiorari. This precedent was further extended with Clause 8 of the
Charter of 1800 for the Supreme Court at Madras and Clause 11 of the Charter of 1823 for the
Supreme Court at Bombay. Following India's independence, the ability to issue a writ of
certiorari was incorporated into Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, symbolizing its
enduring significance in the legal framework for the protection of constitutional rights and
liberties.

Certiorari functions as a corrective measure, allowing a superior court to review and possibly
nullify the decisions of lower courts or tribunals. It is issued to ensure the legality of judicial
proceedings, correcting any jurisdictional excesses or errors of law.
​ Nature and Scope: Corrective, aimed at reviewing and potentially quashing lower court
proceedings.
​ Objective: To verify and rectify errors or overreaches in judicial proceedings.
 ​ Historical Development: Evolved as a mechanism for higher courts to ensure lower
courts adhere to legal standards.
​ Grounds for Issuance:
● Defects in jurisdiction.
● Errors of law.
● Abuse of discretionary power.

Common point between Certiorari and Prohibition –

o Patent and Latent – when we can (patent that means prima facie) see that there is an
error or defect, then Superior Court must give a remedy.
o In latent, meaning later defect is in, then it is discretionary on the part of the court to
provide remedy or not.
Who may apply?
o If it is a patent defect, then even a stranger to the proceedings can apply.
o Because citizens have the duty that whenever there is something ultra vires to the
constitution, the person must inform the court.
o But not for latent effect.

Limitation
● The writ of Prohibition is applicable only in scenarios where judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings are currently pending. It serves to prevent the lower court or tribunal from
continuing with the proceedings that are outside its jurisdiction or are conducted in
violation of natural justice. In contrast, the writ of Certiorari is employed after the
proceedings have concluded. It allows a higher court to review and possibly quash the
decisions of lower courts or tribunals that are found to be lacking jurisdiction or have
erred in their judgment.
● In the context of Certiorari, the higher court operates in a supervisory capacity. It does
not reassess the facts or reevaluate the evidence presented in the original case. Instead,
the court reviews the lower court's or tribunal's decision for jurisdictional errors,
violations of the law, or breaches of procedural fairness, without delving into a
reexamination of the case merits.
● The issue of delay in seeking these writs also has specific considerations. For Certiorari, a
mere delay might not necessarily be a barrier to obtaining relief, especially if the defect in
the lower court's decision is apparent and significant (patent). However, if the defect is
hidden or not immediately obvious (latent), then delay in filing for the writ could act as a
bar to relief, emphasizing the need for timely legal recourse to address grievances against
lower court decisions.
 Differences

Feature Prohibition Certiorari

Nature and Preventive and judicial, aimed at Corrective, aimed at reviewing and
Scope preventing bodies from exercising quashing decisions of lower courts or
powers not vested in them. tribunals.
Object To prevent encroachment of To certify and inform, review the
jurisdiction and restrain bodies records of lower courts, and correct
from acting beyond their powers. errors or excesses in judicial or
quasi-judicial processes.
Historical Originated from King's courts to Evolved from an appeal for error,
Development prevent judicial overreach. allowing higher courts to call for
records and correct errors. Initially used
in criminal cases, it expanded to civil
cases.
Grounds Absence or excess of jurisdiction, Defect of jurisdiction, error of law,
violation of natural justice abuse of discretionary power.
principles, unconstitutionality of
statutes, infringement of
fundamental rights.
Function Not a relief-seeking writ but to Corrective, to examine and potentially
restrain and prevent. quash proceedings of lower courts for
jurisdictional errors or law errors.
Application Applicable before proceedings are Can be issued after proceedings have
terminated, limited to judicial or ended, to any inferior judicial or
quasi-judicial bodies. quasi-judicial authority.
Discretion The court decides whether to Discretionary remedy; the court reviews
accept or reject a prohibition for absence/excess of jurisdiction,
request based on jurisdiction. errors of law, or abuse of power.
Who May If defect is patent, even strangers Similar to prohibition, but with
Apply to the proceedings can apply, emphasis on the corrective nature of
highlighting a public duty to report certiorari against judicial errors.
ultra vires actions.
Against Directed at preventing bodies from Aimed at inferior courts or tribunals for
Whom exceeding their jurisdiction. errors of jurisdiction or law.
Limitations Only lies in cases with judicial or Acts in an advisory capacity, not
quasi-judicial excesses; not appellate; cannot re-appreciate or
applicable if proceedings are re-examine facts. Requires exhaustion
terminated. of alternative remedies.
Cases for Prohibition
● R. v. Electricity Commissioner (1924): Both Writs are of great antiquity forming part of
the process by which the king’s court restraint the court of inferior jurisdiction from
exceeding their powers o Prohibition restraints the tribunal from proceeding further,
whereas Certiorari requires the record or the order of the court to be sent up to the king’s
bench division to have its legality enquired and if necessary to have the order quashed.
● Hari Vishnu Kamat v. Ahmed Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233) - The High Court while
issuing writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution can only annul a decision
of a Tribunal whereas under Article 227 of the Constitution it can issue further directions
as well.
● Govinda Menon v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1274): VERY IMP - Govinda
Menon v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1274), the Supreme Court of India deliberated on
the scope and application of the writ of Prohibition. The petitioner, a member of the
Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Commissioner of Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments, faced allegations of illegalities in the discharge of his duties,
leading to an inquiry. In response, he sought a writ of Prohibition, arguing that his actions
were carried out under statutory powers in a quasi-judicial capacity, and thus, no
proceedings could be initiated against him. The Supreme Court clarified the critical
distinction between the lack of jurisdiction and the manner of exercising it. The Court
held that a writ of Prohibition is pertinent when there is a complete lack of jurisdiction or
an excess of jurisdiction, rendering any proceedings as quorum non judice (not before a
judge). It emphasized that if the issue lies within the realm of jurisdiction but pertains to
the manner of its exercise marked by illegality, then the writ of Prohibition does not
apply. This ruling underscored the necessity of maintaining a clear distinction between
jurisdictional errors and procedural irregularities in the application of judicial remedies.
Cases for Certiorari
● Parry & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Employees Associates (AIR 1952 SC 179): The High
Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari to quash a decision passed with jurisdiction by a
Labour Com- missioner under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, an the
mere ground that such decision is erroneous. Under s. 51 of the Madras Shops and
Establishments Act, 1947, the Labour Commissioner is the only proper and compe- tent
authority to.determine the questions referred to him under that section and the decision
of the Labour Commis- sioner is final and not liable to be challenged in a Court of law.
● Jas Bhai Moti Bhai v. Roshan Kumar (1976 1 SCC 671)
● Syed Yaku v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477): Defined the scope and ambit of
certiorari to correct clear jurisdictional errors or legal misinterpretations by lower courts.
Scope and Ambit – to erect errors of jurisdiction or errors of law when it is manifest and
clear that the conclusion of law recorded by inferior court or tribunal is based on an
obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statute or maybe in disregard of it. Then
Certiorari will apply.
F. Habeas Corpus

Introduction and Constitutional Importance of Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is a fundamental judicial tool for protecting individual liberty against unlawful
detention.

​ Definition and Significance:

● Habeas Corpus, meaning "you may have the body," is a writ demanding a person's
release from unlawful detention.
● It acts as a critical safeguard for personal freedom, ensuring state power is
exercised within legal confines.
​ Constitutional Foundation:
● Rooted in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life
and personal liberty.
● This writ enforces Article 21's mandate against arbitrary arrest and detention,
embodying the principle that liberty is the norm and detention without legal basis
is the exception.
​ Scope and Applicability:
● Applicable to both public authorities and private individuals, reflecting its broad
scope in safeguarding liberty.
● It can be invoked not only when someone is detained but also in cases of threat to
detain unlawfully.
Grounds for Issuance:
● Absence or Excess of Jurisdiction: Applied when detaining authority lacks legal
jurisdiction.
● Violation of Natural Justice: Ensures procedural fairness and adherence to due
process.
● Unconstitutionality of Statute: Invoked when detention is based on laws that
contravene constitutional provisions.
● Infringement of Fundamental Rights: Specifically targets violations of rights
enshrined in the constitution.

- It is a procedural. It is not dealing with substantive law, but only with the Machinery of
Justice to ensure there is no illegal detention.

Important Cases
Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (AIR 1973 SC 2684) - the Supreme Court
highlighted the Habeas Corpus writ as a crucial legal remedy for examining the legality of
detentions. This case underscored the importance of considering the specific context and legal
standards applicable to detention orders. The Court established that the writ's application must be
guided by the principles relevant to the lawful and valid issuance of such orders, ensuring that
detentions are scrutinized thoroughly for their compliance with the law.

State of Bihar v Ram balak singh 1996 If illegal detention has been challenged, HC has the
power to grant bail but it should be inevitably circrumscribed by the considerations which are
special to such proceedings and which have relevance to the object which is intended to be
served by order of detention properly and validly passed under the law.

Charanjeet Lal Chaudhari v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41) - the Supreme Court of India
clarified the locus standi in filing a Habeas Corpus petition. The Court held that a complete
stranger cannot file for Habeas Corpus; however, a "friend of the court" or "next friend" may do
so, provided there is some relationship or concern for the detainee's welfare.

Kishore Samrit v. State of UP – (2013) 2 SCC 398 - the Supreme Court of India expanded on
the concept of locus standi in the context of filing a Habeas Corpus writ. The Court recognized
that, in appropriate situations, a third party with a significant interest or personal stake in the
outcome could file the writ. This could be as a guardian or "next friend" of the detained
individual, broadening the scope for legal interventions on behalf of those whose freedom is
unjustly curtailed, ensuring the protective reach of Habeas Corpus extends to those in need
through representatives who genuinely care for their welfare.

Simranjeet Singh Mann v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 653 - the Supreme Court of India
established a significant precedent regarding the involvement of third parties in legal
proceedings. The Court ruled that a total stranger to a trial, particularly one that has commenced
against convicts, is not permitted to challenge the correctness of the conviction.

Karamjit Singh v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 666 - the Supreme Court addressed a unique
instance where a Habeas Corpus petition was filed by a 'next friend' on the grounds that the
victim's acute obsession constituted a legal disability. The Court's rejection of this argument set a
precedent that for a disability to form the basis of such a petition, it must be recognized by law,
specifically referring to conditions like minority or insanity, not conditions like acute obsession.

Pre-detention Habeas Corpus - Jayantilal Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Maharashtra (1981) 1

CrLJ 767, the court addressed the scope of Habeas Corpus in the context of the Conservation of
Forest Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. It was established that the
writ could challenge not only actual illegal detention but also the legality of detention orders
themselves. This case emphasized Article 226's broad language, ensuring protection against
illegal infringements on personal freedom, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding
liberty beyond physical detention scenarios.
Ved Prakash Devkinandan Chiripal v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 Guj 253), the court dealt
with a scenario under the Essential Commodities Act, 1980, involving a person who had
absconded following a detention order. The individual sought relief through a Writ of Habeas
Corpus or Mandamus. The Gujarat High Court's full bench affirmed the possibility of seeking
such writs, illustrating the judiciary's readiness to entertain petitions for ensuring legal
compliance and protecting individual rights even in complex cases of abscondence and detention
under specific statutes.

Emergency - Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court dealt with the application
of Habeas Corpus during the enforcement of a Presidential Order that suspended Fundamental
Rights. The Court held that during such suspension, petitions under Article 32 or Article 226
invoking Habeas Corpus could not be moved. This position, existing before the landmark ADM
Jabalpur case, highlighted the limitations placed on judicial remedies for protecting personal
liberties under certain constitutional emergency provisions.

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla famously known as the Habeas Corpus case, revolved
around the central issue of whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution could be suspended during an Emergency. The Supreme Court, in a
controversial decision, ruled that during the Emergency, the right to personal liberty could be
suspended, and courts could not challenge the detention of individuals under laws like the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). This landmark judgment underscored a
significant limitation on the judiciary's power to safeguard personal freedom during times of
national crisis, effectively denying citizens the right to approach the court for a writ of habeas
corpus, which is a fundamental judicial recourse for individuals detained without legal
justification. The 4-1 majority ruling held that in the face of an Emergency declaration, the
executive's actions were beyond judicial review

M Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), a landmark judgment by a Constitutional Bench of the

Supreme Court, addressed the nature of fundamental rights within the context of the Indian
Constitution. The court opined that it is a fallacy to consider fundamental rights as mere gifts
from the State to its citizens. Instead, the judgment emphasized that individuals inherently
possess basic human rights, not by virtue of any constitution, but simply because they are
members of the human race. This pronouncement underscored the intrinsic value of fundamental
rights, highlighting their existence beyond the scope of constitutional grant, rooted in the very
essence of human dignity and liberty.

Writ of HC not available if detenue/petitioner is in Judicial Custody or order of remand is made

under Sec 344 CrPC because these 2 are detention by the judiciary only - In the case of A.
Lakshman Rao v. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parvatipuram (AIR 1971 SC 186), the
petitioner challenged the legality of his detention through a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that
there were no explicit guidelines governing remand orders, which could potentially lead to
arbitrary and illegal detention. The Supreme Court acknowledged the absence of express
parameters for exercising judicial power in issuing remand orders but clarified that this lack of
specific guidelines did not render the power itself unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that
while remand orders must be scrutinized for their legality, the absence of detailed guidelines did
not inherently lead to unconstitutional detention. This case underlines the principle that, even in
the absence of explicit guidelines, judicial discretion must be exercised within the bounds of the
law to ensure that detention remains lawful and justified.

Ex-parte – court will not give this unless the exceptional circumstances so demands - Sebastian
M. Hongray v. Union of India 1984 AIR 571 - When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under Art. 32 of the Constitution is moved before the court, ordinarily the court would not issue
ex parte a writ of habeas corpus unless the urgency of the situation so demands or issuing of a
notice of motion was likely to result in defeat of justice. Further, the court will be reluctant to
issue a writ of habeas corpus ex parte where the facts of detention may be controverted and it
may become necessary to investigate the facts. The normal practice is that when a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus is moved, the court would direct a notice to be served upon the respondents
with a view to affording the respondents to file evidence in reply. If the facts alleged in the
petition are controverted by the respondents appearing in response to the notice by filing its
evidence, the court would proceed to investigate the facts to determine whether there is
substance in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If on investigation of facts, the court rejects
the contention of the respondents and is satisfied that the respondent was responsible for
unauthorized and illegal detention of the person or persons in respect of whom the writ is sought,
the Court would issue a writ of habeas corpus which would make it obligatory for the
respondents to file a return.