This article has been written by Ms. Shreya Bhattacharya, a 2^nd year BBA LL. B student at Adamas University, Kolkata.

Introduction

A person may seek the appropriate remedies from the Court if their right is violated by any arbitrary administrative action. The Supreme Court and High Courts are granted writ jurisdiction by the Indian Constitution’s Articles 32 and 226 to uphold and defend an individual’s fundamental rights, respectively. A Writ is an official document or order from the court that instructs a person, official, or authority to perform an action or refrain from performing one.

A fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 comes in Part III of the Constitution. This Article gives the Supreme Court the authority to dispense with the long-standing Locus Standi principle and permit public interest litigation (PIL) at the request of civic-minded individuals. The Supreme Court can grant relief to a variety of plaintiffs, including victims of police torture, convicts who are awaiting trial, and those who were forced into bonded labour. Additionally, the Supreme Court has the authority to impose exemplary damages under Article 32, as it did in the cases of Bhim Singh and Rudal Shah. The High Courts are granted extensive authority under Article 226. It acts as a significant repository of judicial authority to manage administration. Legislation cannot limit its authority as described in Article 226. Therefore, the authority granted to High Courts under Article 226 is greater than the authority granted to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

Five different sorts of writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto, are provided under Articles 32 and 226 respectively. As a result of the King’s prerogative power to supervise the proper observance of the law by his agents and tribunals, these are known as prerogative writs in English law. Prerogative writs are extra-ordinary remedies meant to be used in extreme situations where regular legal remedies are insufficient.

1. Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is a Latin phrase that translates to “to have the body.” If a person is being held against his will, his family, friends, or anyone else may petition the court by submitting an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 in the High Court or under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. After reviewing the application and finding it satisfactory, the court issues the writ. 

It requires the person who detained another to present the latter before the Court to inform the Court of the reason he has been imprisoned and to release him if there is no valid reason for the imprisonment. Additionally, the court has the authority to grant exemplary damages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court imposed exemplary damages of Rs. 50,000 in Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494. Anyone may submit a habeas corpus application on behalf of the detainee or prisoner, as well as the detainee or prisoner themselves. Even a letter to the judge noting crimes against detainees can be accepted. In Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, an inmate accused a fellow convict of being subjected to inhumane treatment wrote a letter to a Supreme Court judge. The late justice Krishna Iyer handled this letter as a habeas corpus petition and made the necessary rulings. On any information it receives from any source or quarter, courts may also act on their own initiative in the interests of justice. According to the general rule, anyone who has been wrongfully imprisoned is entitled to seek habeas corpus relief.

Habeas Corpus is not issued in the following cases:

1. Whether the person the writ is issued against or the person in custody is not within the Court’s jurisdiction.
2. To obtain the release of a person jailed on a criminal charge by a court of law.
3. Interfering with a court of record or parliamentary contempt action.
4. Mandamus

Mandamus is a Latin phrase that translates to “We Command.” A judicial mandate is a command that asks a constitutional, statutory, or non-statutory authority to carry out a legal obligation or refrain from acting in a certain way that the authority is not allowed to under the law. Checking the arbitrariness of administrative action is a crucial writ. It also goes by the name “Writ of Justice.”

Mandamus requires the body or individual to whom it is addressed to act. As a result, a body may be ordered to determine a matter when it fails to do so on its own volition. Mandamus can be issued when the government refuses to exercise a legal right that it possesses or when a power-holder illegally refuses to use one that they have been given. So, unless the applicant has a legal right to the execution of a legal duty of a public nature and the party against whom the writ is sought is obligated to fulfil that responsibility, mandamus will not be granted.

Mandamus cannot be issued against the following Individuals:

1. The President or the Governor of a State for the exercise and performance of their official functions, or for any act they have performed or purported to have performed during their official functions.
2. Mandamus does not apply to a private person or entity, whether it is incorporated, unless the State conspires with the private party in question to violate a provision of the Constitution, a law, or a statutory instrument.
3.  It will not be illegal for the state legislature to stop considering passing a law that is allegedly in violation of the constitution.
4. An inferior or ministerial officer who is required to follow his superiors’ commands will not have such information used against them.

Therefore, a Writ of Mandamus is a universal remedy anytime someone has had justice denied to them.

3. Prohibition

The word “prohibition” means “to forbid.” A judicial order known as a “Writ of Prohibition” is one that the Supreme Court or a High Court issue to a lower court or quasi-judicial body to prevent the latter from continuing actions therein that are outside of their purview or that usurp a jurisdiction that is not legally theirs. Therefore, the writ’s purpose is to compel lower courts to stay within the bounds of their authority.

Previously, only judicial and quasi-judicial authorities may receive this writ. However, this requirement is no longer in effect. The rigidity surrounding prohibition has loosened due to the growing features of natural justice and the demand of fairness in administrative tasks. Now, regardless of the type of duty it performs, this writ may lie to anyone if any of the reasons for its issuance are satisfied.

Prohibition is issued only on the following four grounds:

1. Lack of or excess of jurisdiction; 
2. a statute’s validity; 
3. a violation of natural justice’s standards; 
4. Violation of Basic Rights.

So, while the case is still pending and before the order is issued, a writ of prohibition is possible. The goal is to ensure that a lower court or tribunal’s jurisdiction is appropriately exercised and that it does not usurp the jurisdiction of a higher court or tribunal that it does not have.

4. Certiorari

A Latin term with the meaning “to certify” is “certiorari.” This writ gives the Supreme Court and High Courts the authority to overturn rulings that are unlawful. A “certiorari” is a judicial order given by the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 32 and/or the High Court pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution to a lower court, quasi-judicial body, or any administrative body to transmit records of proceedings that are ongoing therein for review and a determination of the legality and validity of the orders passed by them. If the ruling violates the law, it is overturned.

The following requirements must be met for the writ of certiorari to be issued: 

1. Any group of people;
2. Possessing legal standing;
3. Judiciary duty; 
4. The ability to decide issues affecting subjects’ rights;
5. Act beyond your legal authority

The following grounds may be used to issue a writ of certiorari:

(a) Jurisdictional error

1. Irregular jurisdiction
2. Excess of jurisdiction

 (b) Abuse of jurisdiction 

1. (b), evident legal error on the record 
2. (d), and violation of natural justice standards.

The writ of certiorari has a positive and negative intent, in that it contains affirmative action and is used to halt an action. It has both therapeutic and preventative qualities. Where flagrant injustice necessitates positive action, the ability of judicial review is not constrained.

5. Quo Warranto

The Writ of “Quo Warranto” challenges the legitimacy of an office’s holder. What is your authority is the meaning of the phrase “Quo Warranto.” It is a judicial order requesting proof of the authority under which a person holding public office is in that position. This writ is given to the office holder to remove him from his position if it is determined that he lacks a legitimate title.

Writ of Quo Warranto is a form of judicial control in that it allows for a review of the conduct of the administrative body that made the appointment. The writ is given to the person to remove him from a public office to which he is not entitled. The civil right to a public position is tested using it. To remove a person who has usurped a public office, the writ is used in those instances. However, it safeguards citizens from being denied public office to which they may be entitled. Even if a person is not a party who has been wronged, they can nevertheless file a petition for a writ of Quo Warranto.

The following requirements must be met for a writ of Quo Warranto to be issued: 

1. The office must be public and it must have been established by a law or the constitution. 
2. The position must be substantive and not just a servant’s job performed at the whim and pleasure of another person. 
3. The appointment of such individuals to that office violated the Constitution, a law, or a legislative instrument.

Conclusion

Thus, it is evident that the judiciary has broad authority to regulate administrative actions when they violate citizens’ fundamental rights or when they violate the spirit of our nation’s founding document, the Indian Constitution. It makes sure that our democratic system’s three institutions are properly checked and balanced while also upholding the Rule of Law. Our Constitutional provisions are in line with the idea of writs to prevent the suppression of citizens’ rights by judicial action.

References:

1. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1885/Constitutional-philosophy-of-Writs:-A-detailed-analysis.html#:~:text=Article%2032(2)%20of%20the,rights%20conferred%20by%20this%20Part.
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/writ/

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening