Writs {Certiorari, Mandamus, Quo warranto, Prohibition & Habeas Corpus}

What is Writ?

A writ is a formal legal order issued by a court or a judicial authority that directs an individual or authority to perform or refrain from performing a specific act. Writs are an essential component of the judicial system and serve as a mechanism to uphold fundamental rights, enforce duties, and ensure the proper administration of justice.
In simple words, we can say that writs are a written order from the Supreme Court or High Court that commands constitutional remedies for Indian Citizens against the violation of their fundamental rights. Article 32 deals with constitutional remedies that can be seek by an Indian citizen from the High Court and Supreme Court and also it is provided in article 226 of the constitution.

Types of Writs

1. HABEAS CORPUS: “Habeas Corpus” is a Latin term that literally means “to have the body”. This writ is a cornerstone of personal liberty. It is issued by a court to someone who has detained another person, demanding that the detained person be brought before the court. The court then examines the legality of the detention. If the court finds that the detention is unlawful, the person must be released. Habeas Corpus is crucial for protecting individuals from arbitrary or illegal imprisonment. It ensures that no one is detained without a lawful reason and provides a swift remedy for those who are unlawfully detained.
2. MANDAMUS: “Mandamus” is another Latin term, meaning “we command”. This writ is a judicial command issued to a public authority. This could be a government body, a corporation, a lower court, a tribunal, or any other public entity. It orders the authority to perform a public duty that they are legally required to perform. This duty must be clear and obligatory; Mandamus cannot be used to compel someone to do something that is discretionary or not mandated by law. Mandamus is used to ensure that public officials and authorities do not neglect or refuse to carry out their responsibilities. It is a tool to enforce the rule of law and ensure accountability in public administration.
   
   Conditions for granting Mandamus
   a. There must be public or common law duty: Mandamus would be issued only to enforce which is public in nature. It will not be issued against a private individual to enforce a private right such as enforcing a contract.
   b. There must be a specific demand and refusal: there must be a specific demand which has been refused by the authority. However, express demand and refusal is not necessary, and can even be inferred from the circumstances.
   c. There must be clear right to enforce the duty: the applicant must have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty. The right sought to be enforced must be subsisting on date of petition. The right to enforce.
   
3. QUO WARRANTO: “Quo Warranto” is a Latin phrase that translates to “by what authority?” or “by what warrant?”. This writ is issued by a court to inquire into the legality of a person’s claim to hold a public office. It challenges the right of a person to hold a public position. The court examines whether the person was validly appointed or elected to that office and whether they have the legal authority to hold it. If the court finds that the person is holding the office illegally, it can remove them from that office. Quo Warranto is important for preventing the usurpation of public offices and ensuring that only those who are legally entitled to hold them do so.
4. PROHIBITION: This writ is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal. Its purpose is to prevent the lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction. In other words, it stops the lower court from taking actions that it does not have the legal power to take. Prohibition is a preventive measure. It is sought while a case or proceeding is still ongoing in the lower court, to prevent it from making an order that would be beyond its powers. It ensures that lower courts and tribunals operate within their defined legal limits and do not encroach upon the jurisdiction of higher courts.
5. CERTIORARI: This writ is also issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal. However, unlike Prohibition, which is preventive, Certiorari can be both preventive and curative. It is used to quash the order, decision, or proceedings of the lower court or tribunal. The grounds for issuing Certiorari include lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or an error of law. The higher court may either transfer the case to itself for further hearing or simply set aside the decision of the lower court. Certiorari ensures that lower courts and tribunals not only stay within their jurisdiction but also make legally sound decisions.

ARTICLE 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Initially, before 1950, the power to issue these writs was limited to the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. Subsequently, Article 226 broadened this power to encompass all High Courts in India. Furthermore, Article 32 grants Parliament the authority to empower any other court to issue these writs as well. It’s worth noting that India’s system of writs is derived from English law, where they are known as ‘Prerogative writs’.

Who can file a writ petition?

A writ petition can be filed by any person whose Fundamental Rights have been infringed by the State. Thus, the right to file a writ petition is available to anyone to enforce or protect their rights against the State.

Difference between the writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court:

Case Laws

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan

Facts: On July 4, 1956, the Madras State Transport Authority announced the availability of two stage carriage permits for the Madras-Chidambaram route, prompting 107 applications. Provincial Transport (Private) Ltd. received one permit, while the remaining applicants were denied the second, leading to a new application call. Following appeals by 18 parties, including the current appellant and respondent, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the first permit and awarded the second to the appellant, overturning the respondent’s bid. Subsequently, the Madras High Court reversed the Tribunal’s decision, citing overlooked factors. The appellant then contested the High Court’s ruling, arguing it exceeded its purview under Article 226, and escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the High Court is empowered under Article 226 to issue writ to interfere with findings of fact made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal?
Judgement: The Supreme Court, in a detailed examination of Article 226’s jurisdictional limits, clarified the distinct roles of supervisory and appellate review. While High Courts retain the power to issue writs of certiorari to correct jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or violations of natural justice, this power does not extend to re-evaluating factual findings of tribunals.
The court examined that High Courts’ intervention is restricted to rectifying jurisdictional defects, breaches of natural justice, or procedural flaws. Tribunal’s findings are conclusive unless demonstrably perverse or unsupported by evidence. Only patent errors of law, evident on the face of the record, warrant the issuance of a writ.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court’s intervention, through a writ of certiorari under Article 226, into the Tribunal’s findings of fact was an improper exercise of its jurisdiction.

Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai 

Facts: The appellant, claiming title and possession of agricultural land, initiated a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and requested immediate interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Both the Civil Judge and the appellate court denied the injunction. Subsequently, the appellant petitioned the High Court under Article 226, seeking a writ to overturn the lower courts’ rulings. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that it was not maintainable, as the dispute involved a private injunction and thus fell outside the scope of Article 226’s writ jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether the amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in 1999 affect the High Court’s power to review interlocutory orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?
Judgement: The court found that certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction are not tools for addressing ordinary factual or legal mistakes; they apply solely to errors that are patent and self-evident.
The Court held that the 1999 amendments to Section 115 CPC did not curtail the High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227. Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs, including certiorari, primarily to correct jurisdictional errors. Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, enabling the High Court to superintend subordinate courts and tribunals.
While the High Court can intervene under Article 226 to rectify jurisdictional errors, it should refrain from acting as an appellate court to re-evaluate factual findings unless there are manifest errors of law or jurisdictional defects. The Court emphasized the judicious exercise of powers under both Articles 226 and 227. Articles 226 and 227 remain valid instruments for High Courts to address interlocutory orders from subordinate courts.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s petition as non-maintainable.
The court allowed the appeal and the case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani

Facts: A dispute arose between the academic staff and the appellants, a public trust running a science college in Ahmedabad, concerning unpaid salaries, provident fund, gratuity, and closure compensation after the college’s unilateral closure.
Issue: Whether the trust could be compelled to fulfill its financial obligations to the employees through a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution?
Judgement: The Supreme Court, in interpreting Article 226, adopted a broad view of ‘any person or authority,’ extending it to include entities performing public duties, even without statutory establishment. The Court held that the appellant Trust’s management of a publicly aided college constituted a public function, thus falling within the purview of writ jurisdiction. Given the government’s involvement and university oversight, the relationship between the Trust and its employees was deemed to have a public element, obligating the Trust to fulfill its financial commitments.
The Court emphasized that the Trust, despite its private status, was subject to Article 226’s writ jurisdiction due to its management of a publicly aided institution. Rejecting the Trust’s claim of immunity, the Court held that public funding and affiliations imposed positive obligations. Consequently, the Trust was ordered to pay the arrears with interest and cover the employees’ legal costs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Gujarat High Court’s ruling, compelling the appellant Trust to pay the academic staff their outstanding salaries, provident fund dues, gratuity, and closure compensation.

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra 

Facts: A matrimonial dispute arose between Rupa and Ashok, who had been separated for several years. They jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent, but Rupa subsequently withdrew her consent. This withdrawal led to a dispute regarding the validity of the divorce decree, which ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The central legal question before the Court was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court, after the dismissal of a review petition, under Article 32 or otherwise.
Issue: Whether an aggrieved person is qualified for any alleviation against a last judgment or request of the Supreme Court, after excusal of Review Petition, either under Article 32 or otherwise?
Judgement: The Supreme Court observed that, ‘to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.’ The Court held that even after the rejection of a review petition under Article 137, it retains the inherent power to review a case on strictly limited grounds.
Acceptable grounds for a curative petition include, but are not limited to: violation of principles of natural justice, allegations of judicial bias, and abuse of the court’s process. Due to the impossibility of anticipating all potential circumstances, an exhaustive list of grounds was not provided. However, the Court established stringent procedural requirements for filing a curative petition:
Prior Review: The grounds raised in the curative petition must have been previously raised in the dismissed review petition.
Senior Advocate Certification: The petition must be certified by a senior advocate, affirming that all necessary requirements have been met.
Cost Imposition: The Court may impose exemplary costs on the petitioner if the curative petition is found to be vexatious or without merit.
Circulation to Senior Judges: The petition must be circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who rendered the original judgment. If a majority of this bench determines that the matter warrants a hearing, it shall be listed before the same bench, if feasible.
The concept of the curative petition is rooted in the Court’s inherent powers and is supported by Article 137 of the Indian Constitution.
The court held that article 32 of the Constitution of India does not provide a remedy for challenging a final judgment or order, regardless of whether the applicant was a party to the original proceedings.

PRESENT PROBLEM

3. Prof. Dixit can validly file:
– a writ of certiorari to quash the termination for being violative of natural justice.
– a writ of mandamus for reinstatement, based on the public nature of the institution and breach of legal duties.
The writ will likely be maintainable under article 226 since:
– the college performs public functions
– the termination lacks procedural fairness and may be malafide.

4. The writ is maintainable, and the termination of services via closure is no defense against legitimate financial claims. The High Court should allow the writ petition, ensuring justice and protection for the teacher’s constitutional and legal rights.