This article has been written by Ms. Shruti Medhekar, a 4^th year B.A.LLB student of Keshav Memorial College of Law.

INTRODUCTION:

In common law writ means an order issued by the courts to its subordinate courts, government and other authorities. It is a command given by a court to the authorities to do or not to do some act which is of public nature. The writs are one of the crucial and commanding power vested with the courts. The constitution of India also has the similar provision of writs. 

The constitution of India guarantees the individuals fundamental rights under Part III of the constitution. But mere providing the rights does not fulfill the intent of the legislature until there are some provisions for its protection and enjoyment. 

The constitution of India gives the power both to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to issue the writs. Article 32 and 226 of the constitution empowers the Supreme Court and the High Court to issue the writs respectively. 

The nature of these writs are remedial in nature, they are considered as judicial remedies available to the public. When any rights of the individuals which are guaranteed to them by the law are infringed or violated the individual can file the writ for proper enforcement and enjoyment of their rights. They can seek remedy through this way. 

TYPES OF WRITS:

Accordingly the constitution of India consists of five types of writs. They are:

1. Writ of Habeas Corpus
2. Writ of Mandamus
3. Writ of Prohibition
4. Writ of Certiorari
5. Writ of Quo Warranto

Habeas corpus: The Latin term habeas corpus literally means “to have the body”. The object of writ of habeas corpus is to keep a check on the arbitrary and illegal use of the power vested in such subordinate authorities by law. It acts as an order for calling upon and asking to be present in person, before the court if any individual has been detained or arrested by any authority to know the grounds of detention or arrest. For proper execution of this writ following conditions are to be fulfilled.

1. There must be some illegal restraint or detention.
2. No reasonable grounds for detention are provided by the authority.
3. The writ can then be filed and further be issued by the court.
4. The state or the authority on issuance of writ, present the detained individual in the court and state all the material facts for such detention.
5. The court will examine all the facts and if found that the detention is illegal ask the authority to immediately release the individual. 

This writ can be further issued even during emergency period for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under article 20 and 21 of the constitution. 

In the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla, 1976 2 SCC 521, 612 the Supreme Court held that during emergency period all the fundamental rights are suspended and no person has right to move to the court foe the enforcement of their fundamental rights. But after the 44^th constitutional amendment stated that the rights conferred under article 20 and article 21 cannot be suspended even during emergency.  

Mandamus: The term mandamus literally means we command. The writ of mandamus means a command or order issued by a superior court to its subordinate or inferior authorities to do or restraint from doing any act of statutory nature. It is a discretionary remedy. It is generally issued when no other alternative remedy is available against the violation of the particular right. The essentials required for the writ of mandamus to lie are:

1. The petitioner must have a legal right.
2. The authority or the opposite party must have a corresponding legal duty to perform.
3. On insistence by the petitioner to perform the duty the authority denies or refuses to perform it.
4. The writ will be issued for the performance of such duty.

In Chingleput Bottlers vs Majestic Bottling Company held that the petitioner contention that commissioner acted in breach of natural justice by failure to furnish the report. And further stated that they didn’t make any demand for such report. 

Prohibition: Prohibition means to bar or to forbid. The writ of prohibition is a judicial remedy and it can be issued against the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. The object of this writ is to restrict and prevent the subordinate courts and authorities to perform in excess of their jurisdiction. This writ acts as a preventive remedy. It forbids the ultra vires act of the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. This writ can be issued against the following acts:

1. Absence or excess of jurisdiction.
2. Violation of natural justice.
3. Question of unconstitutionality.
4. Infringement of fundamental rights.
5. Error of law.

In case of S. Govind Menon vs Union of India it was held that the writ of prohibition can be issued both in case when there is both excess of jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction. 

Certiorari: Certiorari is a Latin term which literally means to certify. The writ of certiorari acts as a certification and correction mechanism at the hands of superior courts on the decisions given by the subordinate courts and other quasi-judicial authorities. 

The superior courts scrutinizes and examines the records and decisions of the subordinate courts and other quasi-judicial authorities. It acts as a review mechanism and provides remedy when there is any violation of law affecting the public. This writ is similar to that of the writ of prohibition. Ryots of Garabandho vs Zamindar of Parlakimedi was first leading decision on writ of certiorari. 

Quo warranto: Quo warranto literally means what is your authority.  It is a prerogative writ. This writ is issued in order to question the office of any public nature as by what authority he is holding such office. The court asks the concerned person that by what authority he is holding the office. And if the courts findings expressly state that the person has no authority he will be removed and restricted from holding that particular office. 

It generally protects the interest of public when any office holder infringes their right by means and power of the office which he obtained illegally.

In case of Amarendra Chandra vs Narendra Kumar Basu the members of managing committee of a school were the respondents. The question raised by the petitioners was on what basis and by what power they occupied their posts. The court clearly held that the writ of quo warranto can be issued only against the office or authority of public nature and not private. The school being private authority the writ of quo warranto does not lie against them as the essentials of the writ are not satisfied. It can be issued only against the public authorities. 

All the above mentioned writs speaks about the remedies which can be provided on their issuance. These writs can be filed by the individuals whose right has been violated and it lies against the specific authorities by the act of whom the individual’s rights are violated. 

In the Indian society these writs provide easy and expeditious remedy to the public at large. The filing of these writs is a simple and easy procedure. It is stated that any person can file a writ so long as they have any of their rights concerned being infringed. The procedure not being so complicated makes it easily accessible to the public who are not aware and further not able to reach the advocates to get justice. They can straightforwardly knock the doors of the court of law to seek justice and properly enjoy the fruits of their fundamental rights. 

CONCLUSION:

The writs provided under the Indian constitution is a very effective remedy provided to the society at large. It is very well known that not all the individuals are aware of the procedures of law through whom and which authority they can seek justice. And further some are not even aware of the rights guaranteed to them.

Writs are one of such means provided to the public which takes one step forward in providing easy and accessible justice for the people who are in need of it. 

REFERENCES:

1. ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla, 1976 2 SCC 521, 612
2. Chingleput Bottlers vs Majestic Bottling Company
3. S. Govind Menon vs Union of India
4. Ryots of Garabandho vs Zamindar of Parlakimedi
5. Amarendra Chandra vs Narendra Kumar Basu
6. Indiankanoon.com
7. Legalauthority.in
8. Constitution of India – V.N. Shukla 

Aishwarya Says:

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 secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening