The writs of certiorari, mandamus, and quo-warranto are judicial remedies that can be issued by the Supreme Court or the High Courts under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. They are used to enforce the fundamental rights of the citizens and to check the legality and validity of the actions of the lower courts, tribunals, or public authorities. Here is a brief explanation of each writ with some examples:
Writ of certiorari: This writ is issued to quash an order or decision of a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority that has exceeded its jurisdiction, violated the principles of natural justice, or committed an error of law. For example, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had reduced the punishment of a corrupt officer from dismissal to compulsory retirement.
Writ of mandamus: This writ is issued to command a public official, body, or authority to perform a duty that he or she is legally bound to do, but has failed or refused to do so. For example, the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to direct the Union of India and the State Governments to provide adequate facilities for education to children with disabilities as per the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Writ of quo-warranto: This writ is issued to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to hold a public office or franchise, and to oust him or her from that position if he or she is found to be a usurper or an intruder. For example, the Supreme Court issued a writ of quo-warranto to remove a person who was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of a university without fulfilling the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission.Here are some of the landmark cases related to each type of writ:
Habeas corpus: This writ is issued to secure the release of a person who is illegally detained or imprisoned. It means “you have the body” in Latin. Some of the famous cases involving this writ are:
A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), also known as the Habeas Corpus case, where the Supreme Court held that the right to move the court for habeas corpus was suspended during the Emergency under Article 359 of the Constitution. This judgment was widely criticized and overruled by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution, which made Article 21 (right to life and liberty) non-suspendable even during an emergency.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court held that the right to go abroad was a part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and the passport of Maneka Gandhi, who was detained at the airport, could not be impounded without giving her an opportunity of hearing. The court also expanded the scope of Article 21 by holding that any law affecting the right to life and liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of habeas corpus could also be used to protect the prisoners from inhuman treatment or torture inside the jails, and not just for their release. The court also laid down certain guidelines for the prison administration to ensure the dignity and rights of the inmates.
Mandamus: This writ is issued to command a public authority or official to perform a duty that he or she is legally bound to do, but has failed or refused to do so. It means “we command” in Latin. Some of the notable cases involving this writ are:
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to direct the central and state governments to enact laws to prevent and punish sexual harassment of women at workplaces, and also laid down certain guidelines for the same, known as the Vishaka guidelines. The court also recognized the right to work with dignity as a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), where the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to direct the central government to ensure the independence and autonomy of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and also laid down certain directions for the same. The court also held that the government was accountable to the people and the judiciary for its actions and inactions, especially in matters of public interest and corruption.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to direct the central government to implement the living will and passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients, and also laid down certain guidelines for the same. The court also recognized the right to die with dignity as a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Certiorari: This writ is issued to quash an order or decision of a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority that has exceeded its jurisdiction, violated the principles of natural justice, or committed an error of law. It means “to be certified” in Latin. Some of the significant cases involving this writ are:
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1955), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of certiorari could be issued not only for the lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, but also for the abuse of jurisdiction or the failure to exercise jurisdiction by the lower authority. The court also held that the writ could be issued for the violation of the principles of natural justice, such as the bias of the authority or the denial of a fair hearing to the aggrieved party.
Parry & Co. v. Commercial Employees’ Association (1952), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of certiorari could be issued to quash the decisions of private bodies or associations, if they affected the rights or interests of the public or a section of the public, and if they exercised some public or statutory functions or duties. The court also held that the writ could be issued for the violation of the rules of natural justice or the constitution or the bye-laws of the private body or association.
T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of certiorari could be issued to quash the decisions of the executive or administrative authorities, if they affected the rights or interests of the individuals or the public, and if they acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. The court also held that the writ could be issued for the violation of the principles of natural justice or the law or the constitution by the executive or administrative authority.
Prohibition: This writ is issued to restrain a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority from continuing a proceeding that is beyond its jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or in contravention of the law or the constitution. It means “to forbid” in Latin. Some of the important cases involving this writ are:
East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1962), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition could be issued to prevent the lower authority from usurping a jurisdiction that it did not possess, or from acting in excess of its jurisdiction, or from acting in breach of the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the writ could be issued at any stage of the proceeding, before the final order or decision was made by the lower authority.
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition could be issued to correct the errors of jurisdiction or the errors of law apparent on the face of the record, committed by the lower authority. The court also held that the writ could be issued to prevent the abuse of the process of law or the miscarriage of justice by the lower authority.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (1958), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition could be issued to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens from the infringement by the lower authority. The court also held that the writ could be issued to prevent the violation of the constitutional provisions or the statutory provisions by the lower authority.
Quo-warranto: This writ is issued to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to hold a public office or franchise, and to oust him or her from that position if he or she is found to be a usurper or an intruder. It means “by what authority” in Latin. Some of the prominent cases involving this writ are:
University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1965), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of quo-warranto could be issued to test the validity of the appointment of a person to a public office, and not his or her suitability or merit for that office. The court also held that the writ could be issued only if the office was of a substantive and permanent character, and not of a temporary or contractual nature.
Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2006), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of quo-warranto could be issued to challenge the appointment of a person as the Chief Minister of a state, if he or she did not have the support of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, or if he or she had lost the confidence of the house. The court also held that the writ could be issued to uphold the constitutional principles of democracy and rule of law.
B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Association (2006), where the Supreme Court held that the writ of quo-warranto could be issued to challenge the appointment of a person as the Chairman of a statutory body or corporation, if he or she did not fulfill the qualifications or eligibility criteria prescribed by the law or the constitution. The court also held that the writ could be issued to prevent the misuse or abuse of public power or authority.
Comments
Post a Comment