Jurisdiction Of Writs Under the Indian Constitution,1950

Key concepts:-

1. INTRODUCTION

2. What is Writ?
2.1         Habeas Corpus
2.2         Mandamus
2.3         Prohibition
2.4         Quo-Warranto
2.5         Certiorari
3.    Jurisdiction of a writ under Article 32 of the Supreme Court
4.    Jurisdiction of a writ under Article 226 of the High Court
5.    Difference between the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court
6.    Conclusion

Introduction:-

A writ is a power issued by Constitutional Courts like the Supreme Court and the High Court. It originated in England; the Indian Constitution has adopted the concept of the prerogative of writs from English common law. The Intellection of Writs is dealt with under 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. The power to issue writs is conferred upon the Supreme Court by Article 32 and the High Court by Article 226. The main concept of writs under articles 32 and 226 is to protect the fundamental rights of the people of India.

Writ:-

It is a legal document and a written order issued by the Supreme Court and High Court of India under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. It is a Constitutional Remedies to protect the Fundamental rights of the people. The right to Constitutional Remedies for the protection of Fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right. It is a Fundamental right to save the people by issuing Warrants, Orders, and other writs. It is traced back to the ancient kings of Anglo Saxon kings, who used them primarily to convey grants of lands.

There are five types of Writs, They are:-

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

Habeas Corpus:-

The term means "having the body of" in Latin. The 39th Article of the Magna Carta, which King John signed in 1215, is where the idea of habeas corpus originally appeared. It is a Constitutional right to save unlawful detention and undetermined confinement. The Supreme Court or High Court issues Habeas Corpus to the person who incarcerated the other person to bring him in front of the court.

The following circumstances prohibit the issuance of habeas corpus:

1.    When the Detention is Lawful
2.    The proceeding is for the competent of a legislature or a court
3.    Detention is by a Competent Court
4.    When the court doesn’t have territorial Jurisdiction over the Detainer
5.    When the person's detention is associated with the court's order.

Case Law:-

ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla

Equivalent Citation AIR 1976 SC 1207

Shivani Shukla Vs. ADM Jabalpur is a Landmark decision case in the Supreme Court of India about the Habeas corpus case. The Judgement received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance attached to the Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. This Controversial Judgement of P.N.BHAGWATI decreed during the emergency of 1975 to 1977 that a person’s right not to be unlawfully detained can be suspended.

Mandamus:-

It speaks of "we command." It is a legal directive that public servants, lower courts, and other corporations carry out their duties precisely, as granted by the Supreme Court or High Court, according to Articles 32 and 226. It is a legal remedy to make the officials do their duty accurately. It is an order by the superior courts for the public officials who are disgraced to do their duty and who are not doing their work decorously.

Mandamus cannot be issued in the following cases:-

1. The governors of the states or the president of India are not subject to mandamus proceedings.

2. It cannot be issued against the chief justice of the High Court acting in a judicial capacity.

3. It cannot be issued against the private body.

4. To enforce a contractual obligation.

5. To enforce departmental instruction that doesn’t possess statutory force.

Case law:-

K. Natarajan vs. State Of Kerala And Ors. on 18 July 1960

Equivalent citations: AIR 1961 Ker 318

This is for the same period and the Quiton town. The legality of granting the latter license to the third respondent has been challenged by the writ petition, firstly on the ground of Rule 13 not having authorized the grant in favor of the third respondent. The appellant has next claimed that his fundamental right under Article 19(g) has been infringed by the license in favor of the aforesaid respondent. It follows that the main issue in the appeal is, how far the interpretation, the appellant seeks to place on Rule 13, under which the third respondent has been given the license, is correct. It would, therefore, be of advantage to quote the relevant part of the Rule.

Prohibition:-

A higher court, such as the Supreme Court or High Court, may issue prohibition writs under Articles 32 and 226 to subordinate courts, tribunals, inferior courts, and quasi-judicial organizations in order to prevent them from exercising their jurisdiction or from breaching their fundamental rights. This writ is issued to the courts when they exceed their jurisdiction or when their basic rights are breached. Prohibition can only be issued to the Judicial officers or courts. This prevents them from doing an act from happening.

Prohibition cannot be issued in the following cases:-

1. Prohibition writ cannot be issued against legislative bodies, administrative authorities, or Individual private bodies.

Facts about Prohibition:-

1. It can only be issued to the Judicial bodies or courts.

2. It can be filed in the absence of Jurisdiction.

Case law:-

Prudential Capital Markets Ltd Vs. The State of A.P. and others on 2^nd August 2000

Equivalent Citations:- 2000 (5) ALD 418, 2000 (5) ALT 468, 2002 108 CompCas 441 AP

In this case, it was questionable whether the prohibition writ could be issued against the district forum/state commission, which had already passed judgments in the depositors’ consumer cases. The Court held that after the execution of the order, the writ of prohibition cannot be issued, and the judgment can neither be prevented nor stopped.

Quo-Warranto:-

The Latin meaning of Quo-Warranto is “By what Authority or Warrant”. The quo-warranto writ is an order issued by the higher courts like the Supreme Court or High Court under Articles 32 and 226 to forbid the person who disproportionately permeates the government property. The court enquires into the legality of a claim of a person to a public office. It is a common law remedy that is used to challenge a person’s right to hold public or government properties.

Quo-Warranto can be issued in the following cases:-

1. It can be issued against any person who is occupying the government or a public body.
2. It can be issued against a private body too.
3. The office must be public and created by the Indian constitution.

Case Law:-

Purushottam Lal vs the State of Rajasthan on 3^rd July 1978

Equivalent Citations:- AIR 1979 Raj 18

A quo warranto was filed against the chief minister of Rajasthan in the Purushottam Lal v. State of Rajasthan case, claiming that the chief minister was not duly elected to the house. The court denies the petition, declaring that it is against the constitution for the CM to hold office without being duly elected. The constitution established the Chief Minister's position. Thus being an assemblyman is not one of the office's objectives. It is improper to raise doubts about the Chief Minister's election using this writ; instead, an election petition should be used. The governor cannot be removed if someone who was appointed as CM by the governor in violation of Article 164 of the Constitution was shown to be ineligible. Because the High Court would desert the appointment, and he was in a position of authority under Article 361. A quo warranto cannot be given in the case of Y.S. Raja Sekar Reddy v. Nara Chandra Babu Naidu to remove a state's chief minister for failing to carry out his constitutional duties.

Certiorari:-

The Latin word Certiorari refers to “To be certified or To be informed”. Certiorari writs issued by the Higher courts like the High Court or the Supreme Court as defined by Articles 32 and 226 to the sub-ordinate courts, Tribunals, lower courts, Quasi-judicial Authorities, or Public Authorities to issue their pending cases for review or either to transfer the cases.

Certiorari can be issued in the following cases:-

1. If the order was against the principle of natural justice.

2. If the order contains a blunder of judgment.

3. If it is against the Constitution or contravention to the Fundamental rights

4. A court, tribunal, or other authorized individual with the authority to act in a judicial capacity must exist.

5. Such court, Tribunal, or officer must act or pass an order without Jurisdiction or over judicial authority.

Case law:-

Province of Bombay Vs. Khushaldas on 15 September 1950

Equivalent Citations:- 1950 AIR 222, 1950 SCR 621

In the case of the Province of Bombay Vs. Khushaldas, it was held by the court that whenever any competent Authority has the legal authority to decide on a matter, the rights of the parties transcend the Authority.

Jurisdiction of the writ under Article 32 of the Supreme Court:-

The Supreme Court can issue orders under Article 32 of the Indian constitution by issuing writs like Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto, and Certiorari. A fundamental right under Section III of the constitution is Article 32. The Supreme Court can grant relief to a variety of Victims and other people who were tortured by the police and who were forced into bonded labor. The Supreme has the power to issue writs against the Government, Judicial bodies, Private individual bodies, and other corporations. When a citizen’s Fundamental rights are infringed, he has the power to issue a writ against the person in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian constitution.

Jurisdiction of the writ under Article 226 of the High Court:-

The High Court can issue orders under Article 226 of the Indian constitution by issuing various types of writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto, and Certiorari for any reason, including the enforcement of basic rights. The High Court has the power to issue writs against the Government, Judicial bodies, Private individual bodies, and other corporations. When a citizen’s Fundamental rights are breached, he has the power to issue a writ against the person in the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian constitution.

Difference Between Supreme Court and High Court:-

SUPREME COURT	HIGH COURT
The Supreme Court of India has the power to issue the writ under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.	The High Court of India has the power to issue the writ under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India can only issue writs when the Fundamental Rights of the Citizens are breached.	When citizens' fundamental rights are violated, the Indian High Court has the authority to issue writs. In addition, the High Court may issue writs under various conditions.

Conclusion:-

The Indian Supreme Court and High Court of India are empowered to give writs by virtue of Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. The writs are granted in order to pursue remedies for fundamental rights violations. Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto, and Certiorari are the five different categories of writs. According to Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, only the Supreme Court and High Court of India have the authority to issue writs. These writs have therefore played a crucial role in defending the rights of citizens. The government, judicial bodies, quasi-judicial bodies, private person bodies, and other corporations are all granted these writs.