The Writ of Mandamus

The writ of mandamus is a powerful legal remedy that

plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring
the accountability of public officials and authorities. In
India, the writ of mandamus has a rich historical
background and continues to be a significant tool for
judicial redress. The concept of mandamus can be traced
back to ancient India, where the King’s court would issue
royal commands known as ‘Adeshas’ to ensure that public
officials performed their duties on time. However, the
formal recognition of mandamus as a legal remedy came
during the British colonial era. The Indian judiciary
inherited the writ jurisdiction from the British Legal system
including the writ of Mandamus. The writs were enshrined
in the Constitution of India under Article 32 and Article
226, empowering the Supreme Court and High Courts,
respectively, to issue writs for the enforcement of
fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Now let us
understand what mandamus means in terms of Law.

What mandamus means in Law

Mandamus is a Latin word that literally means ‘we

command’. A writ of mandamus is a legal order issued by a
court that commands a government official, public
authority, or lower court to perform a specific act or duty
that they are legally obligated to do. The Merriam-
Webster dictionary defines Mandamus as “a writ issued
by a superior court commanding the performance of a
specified official act or duty.” It is a remedy available in
common law jurisdictions to ensure that public officials or
bodies fulfill their legal obligations. Any individual affected
by the violation of any person, inferior court, corporation,
or government to perform the public duty and has the
right to compel its performance can apply to the Supreme
Court or High Court for the writ of Mandamus.

What are the conditions for the issuance of

mandamus?

The conditions for the issuance of a writ of mandamus

can vary depending on the jurisdiction, but generally, the
following conditions must be met:

Existence of a clear legal right that is being denied or

violated by the respondent (any government official).
This means that there must be a specific duty
imposed by a law on the respondent and the
petitioner must show that they are entitled to have
that duty fulfilled.
The petitioner must show that there is no other
adequate legal remedy available to address the
violation of their rights. If there is another legal
remedy that can effectively provide relief, a writ of
mandamus may not be granted.
The duty or act that the petitioner seeks to compel
must be a ministerial duty, meaning it must be a
specific, non-discretionary duty that does not involve
 the exercise of judgment or discretion by the
respondent. Mandamus is not typically used to
control discretionary actions or decisions.
The respondent should have refused to perform
his/her public duty when called on by the petitioner to
do the same.

Purpose of Mandamus

The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to ensure that

public officials, government agencies, or lower courts
perform their legal obligations and duties. It is a means to
compel action and prevent arbitrary or unlawful inaction
by those in authority. Mandamus serves to promote the
rule of law, protect individual rights, and ensure that the
government functions in accordance with the law.

By issuing a mandamus, the court orders the respondent

to fulfill their legal duty, and failure to comply may result in
contempt of court. The writ can be used to address a
variety of situations where a public official or body is not
performing its obligations, such as cases involving delays
in administrative decisions, refusals to release public
information, or failure to enforce statutory requirements.

Exceptions to Mandamus

Some of the common exceptions that may limit or

preclude the issuance of a mandamus are mentioned as
follows:
 In case there is an alternate legal remedy that is
equally effective in providing the relief sought then
the court may decline to issue a writ of mandamus.
In the presence of political questions, the courts have
the right to decline to issue a mandamus that can be
resolved more efficiently by the government than the
judiciary.
Not applicable to compel or control discretionary acts
or decisions by public officials and is typically limited
to cases involving ministerial duties.
A court may be hesitant to issue a mandamus in case
no clear legal right is established.
On the basis of factors such as lack of clean hands,
undue delay by the petitioner, etc., a court may
exercise its discretion in deciding whether to issue
mandamus or not.

Limitations of the Writ of Mandamus

Some of the limitations of the Mandamus writ are

mentioned as follows:

The President or governors of states cannot be

subject to the writ of mandamus as per Article 361 of
the Indian Constitution which states, “The President,
or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not
be answerable to any court for the exercise and
performance of the powers and duties of his office or
for any act done or purporting to be done by him in
the exercise and performance of those powers and
 duties…”
The writ cannot be issued against private individuals,
and companies having no public duty to perform.

Writ of Mandamus: Features

The writ of mandamus possesses several distinctive
features that set it apart as a legal remedy which are
highlighted as follows:

Its ability to compel the performance of a specific

duty or act. It is a remedy used to enforce a clear
legal right, ensuring that public officials, lower courts,
or government agencies fulfill their obligations in
accordance with the law.
A crucial element for obtaining a mandamus is the
existence of a clear legal right. The petitioner seeking
the writ must demonstrate that they have a legal
entitlement to the performance of the duty or act
requested. The right must be well-established and
not subject to dispute.
The writ of mandamus is closely associated with the
power of judicial review. It allows the higher courts to
examine the actions or inactions of public officials or
authorities to ensure they are in compliance with the
law. The court reviews the legality and validity of the
actions and may issue the writ to correct any
deficiencies or omissions.
Mandamus is generally applicable to cases involving
ministerial duties, which refers to a specific, non-
 discretionary obligation that does not involve the
exercise of judgment or discretion by the respondent,
rather than discretionary actions.
While mandamus is a powerful remedy, its issuance is
subject to the court's discretion. The court assesses
the merits of the case, considers equitable factors,
and exercises discretion in determining whether to
grant the writ.
Failure to comply with a peremptory mandamus may
result in contempt of court. Contempt proceedings
can be initiated against the party or entity that fails to
fulfill the duty or act as commanded by the court.
Contempt sanctions can include fines, imprisonment,
or other punitive measures.
A Mandamus is typically available when there is no
other adequate legal remedy to address the violation
of rights or compel the desired action. If an
alternative remedy exists that can effectively provide
relief, a mandamus may not be granted.

All these features of the writ of mandamus collectively

define its scope and nature, making it a potent legal
recourse to ensure the performance of duties and protect
individual rights.

Types of Mandamus
There are generally two types of mandamus:

Peremptory Mandamus: The peremptory mandamus is

the principal and final form of the writ. It is an absolute
command issued by a court to a public official or
authority, ordering them to perform a specific duty or act
that they are legally obligated to do. It leaves no room for
discretion or argument and requires immediate
compliance. Failure to comply with a peremptory
mandamus may result in contempt of court.

Alternative Mandamus: Alternative mandamus is an

initial or interim form of the writ. It is issued by a court
when it is not satisfied that the respondent (the person or
entity against whom the writ is sought) has fulfilled its
legal duty. The alternative mandamus sets out the alleged
failure or breach of duty and commands the respondent
to either perform the required act or provide a legal
justification for not doing so. The respondent is given a
specific period of time to respond. If the respondent fails
to comply or provide a satisfactory explanation, the court
may convert the alternative mandamus into a peremptory
mandamus.

Recent Cases
Moran M. Baselios Mathoma Mathews II & Ors. State
of Kerala & Ors. (April 04, 2007)
Suresh Chand Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. (March 11, 2016)
Sangita Vilas Ingle vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(February 06, 2017)
Landmark Cases
Rashid Ahmed vs. Municipal Board, Kairana (May 19,
1950)
Sohan Lal vs. Union of India (March 07, 1957)
State of W.B. and others vs. Nuruddin Mallik and
others (September 18, 1998)
P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. vs. Swami Dharamanda
Theertha Padar & Ors. (March 10, 2006)

Conclusion
In the Indian legal system, the writ of mandamus has a
significant role as it serves as a powerful tool for ensuring
government accountability and protecting fundamental
rights. Its availability and limitations may vary across
jurisdictions, but its core purpose remains steadfast in
promoting accountability and upholding the principles of
justice.