A detailed presentation about types of Writs in the Constitution of India. By: __________________ (For Law Laboratory) Follow us on Instagram: @Law_Laboratory Website: www.lawlaboratory.in

1. WRITS

2. INTRODUCTION
• Writ, as per the common law, is a proper written order issued by
a body.
• Administrative jurisdiction: The exercise of Writs can also be
done by the administration within their jurisdiction.

3. • Judicial jurisdiction: Mainly, the function of Writs are performed
by the Judiciary.
• Though in modern usage, the body is connoted in court. For eg:
Prerogative writs, warrants and subpoena.

4. Writs are a written order from either:
1. SUPREME COURT
2. HIGH COURT (of that particular State)
Writs are generally the instructions constitutional remedies for Indian Citizens,
for the violation of their fundamental rights / legal Rights,
WRITS IN INDIA

5. TYPES OF WRITS
There are five types of writs that are issued by the Supreme court/
High court in India :
1. Habeas Corpus 4. Prohibition
2. Mandamus 5. Certiorari
3. Quo Warranto

6. • The Apex court has the power to issue writs for the infringement of
fundamental rights.
• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution talks about the writ
jurisdiction.
WRIT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

7. v
• Five kinds of writs can be issued by it.
• One can directly approach Supreme Court for their violation of
fundamental right.

8. WRIT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT
• Article 226 talks about the writ jurisdiction of High Court.
• Writs can be issued by it for infringement of the Fundamental
rights/Legal rights.
• Five kinds of writs can be issued by the High Courts.

9. • High Courts has the wider power as compared to the Supreme
Court as it can issue writs for infringement of both legal and
fundamental rights.

10. HAEBUS CORPUS
• This Writ means ‘we may have a body’.
• It states that the person confined without any legal means, has to be
released.
•And, the Person arrested must be presented before Magistrate
within 24 hours of his arrest.

11. • This writ is mainly a form of order by the High court/ Supreme
court for the release of person who is wrongly detained.
• Petition can be made by confined person or someone on his
behalf, and procedure may differ as per High court rules.

12. • It is against the illegal detention.
• Person not to be released, if there is no illegal restraint.
• Petition lies, if mala fides of detaining authority proved.

13. • In Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1951 SC
217], Normally no writ of habeas corpus will lie in regard to
person who is undergoing imprisonment on a sentence of a court in
a criminal trial on the ground of erroneousness of conviction.

14. • In Prahlad Krishna Kurne, re [AIR 1951 Bom 25], A person
has a right to present successive applications for habeas corpus to
different judges of the same court.

15. Effective means where someone can be immediately released from
unlawful detention whether from:
• Prison
• Private Custody
• Physical confinement not a prerequisite to constitute detention.

16. The court in the case of Cox vs. Hoakes held that custody
and control is sufficient to constitute detention.

17. • Circumstances and nature of confinement to be stated in
affidavit along the petition.
• The plea for habeas corpus cannot be made to evade
detention.

18. • The court in the case of State of Maharshtra v. Bhaurao
Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) [3 SCC 613] made it very clear that
- The petition for habeas corpus can be made only after the person
is detained.

19. • The writ of Mandamus means to “have a body”.
• The party against whom issued must have a legal duty, which it fails to
perform.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

20. • The court in the Praga Tools corp v. C.A Imanual (1969) [1
SCC 585] case, the court observed that - A writ of mandamus
lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in
performance of which the one who applies for it has a right or
sufficient legal interest.

21. • Commonly pushed into use to stop an administrative authority
from merely committing an act outside the bounds of law.
• This writ may also be used to enforce an act that has been held
unconstitutional.

22. • The writ of Mandamus cannot be issued against the legislature, if
allegedly the bill is in violation of law.
• Mandate cannot be used to direct legislature to bring a particular
law into existence.

23. • The court in the case of Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt.
Governor & HP (1971) [2 SCC 747] held that -
No court can give a direction to government to refrain from
enforcing a provision of law.

24. • The court in Sharif Ahmed v. RTA (1978) [1 SCC 1] observed
that:
The writ of Mandamus is issued to enforce the performance of
ministerial functions and it must be issued when there is no
alternative remedy to enforce such functions.

25. In A.T Markose, Judicial Control of Administrative, page 364,
it is very clearly described the nature of mandamus, that it is a
judicial remedy which is in the from of an order from a superior
court to any government, court, corporation or public authority to
do or to forbear from doing some specific act which that body is

26. obliged under the law to do or refrain from doing, as the
case may be and which is in the nature of public duty and
in certain cases of a statutory duty.

27. • This writ means that “what is your authority”.
• This writ prevents a person who has wrongly usurped an office
from continuing in that office.
• The writ is issued when the authority of person in question is
challenged. However, the office must be a public office.
WRIT OF QUO- WARRANTO

28. • And also it must be held by a person who has no authority to
hold it.
• This writ doesn’t lie in respect of office that is private in nature, it
lies only in case of the Government office.
• The writ of Quo-Warranto may be called in for by a private
person, although he is not personally aggrieved.

29. • This writ is discretionary in nature and petition may not be
accepted by the High court.
• Legality of an office may be challenged by the writ of Quo-
Warranto.

30. • Office in respect of which the writ of Quo-Warranto is issued,
must be of substantive character.
• The court explained the words “substantive” in the case of R vs.
Speyer (1916) 1 KB 595 - It means an office independently
entitled.

31. • This writ commands the court/tribunal to the whom issued to
refrain from doing something which it is about to prevents court/
tribunal to exercise the power.
WRIT OF PROHIBITION

32. • It doesn't have both for -
I. Excess of jurisdiction .
II. Absence of jurisdiction
• This writ is issues only against the judicial/quasi judicial not
executive body.

33. • Well settled where proceedings of inferior court/tribunal are
partially within and some without jurisdiction, the Writ of
Prohibition will be issued for what is excess of jurisdiction.
• The court in the case of S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India
[AIR 1967 SC 1274] observed that:

34. “A writ of prohibition commands the court or tribunal to whom
it is issued to refrain from doing something which it is about to
do. It prevents a tribunal possessing judicial or quasi judicial
powers from assuming or threatening to assume jurisdiction
which it does not possess.”

35. • The Writ of Certiorari gives Directions from the superior court to
inferior court.
• The court in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) [4 SCC
251] case held that -
WRIT OF CERTIORARI

36. “Writ of certiorari is an order of the High court issued to inferior
courts, tribunals or authorities to transmit to it record of
proceedings pending with them for scrutiny, and if necessary, for
quashing the same.”

37. • Grounds for issuance of certiorari.
• Want or excess of jurisdiction.
• Violation of procedure or disregard of principles of natural justice.
• Error of law apparent on the face of the record.

38. • This writ may be issued for correction of jurisdictional errors.
• Either defect of jurisdiction or power.
• If there gross violation of principles of natural justice.

39. • The Writ of Certiorari can be issued by the High Court to courts
subordinate, but not to any High Court or even its bench.
• The writ cannot be issued by High Court to Supreme Court.
• This writ cannot be issued to declare an Act or ordinance
unconstitutional.

40. • Judicial orders passed by the High court in or in relation to
proceedings pending before it are not open to the correction
by certiorari.

41. • In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 SC
233] case –
Both the Writs of Prohibition and certiorari have for their object,
the restraining of the inferior courts from exceeding their
jurisdiction and they could be issued not merely to courts but to the
authorities

42. exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions. Existence of
alternative remedy may be of more relevance in case of Writ of
Certiorari.