The document discusses various writs under the Indian constitution: Habeas corpus can be used to protect prisoners from mistreatment and allows someone other than the detained person to file on their behalf if unable. It has led to compensation for illegal detention and release of those detained without cause. Mandamus is used to direct public authorities to fulfill mandatory duties and has led to refunds of taxes and carrying out orders. Quo warranto challenges the authority of those holding public office. Certiorari examines the jurisdiction of lower courts but does not change their judgments. Prohibition prevents legal proceedings that are without jurisdiction.

1. WRITS

2. Habeas Corpus
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980 AIR
1579) case, an application was made to the
Supreme Court through a letter written by a co-
convict on the maltreatment of the prisoners.
This letter was taken up by the Supreme Court
and it issued the writ of habeas corpus stating
that this writ can not only be used against illegal
arrest of the prisoner but also for his protection
against any maltreatment or inhuman behaviour
by the detaining authorities.

3. • Case- Rudul Sah v State of Bihar
• Whenever an order for release of a person from illegal
detention is passed by the court under Article 32
(Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Court) and
detaining authority claim that the person has also been
released, but the fact of such release are not found and
the person detained is not traceable the court may
order the payment of compensation by the detaining
authority.
• Lastly, it is claimed the writ of habeas corpus can only
be issued after the person is detained and not to
prevent a person from getting arrested.

4. • Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling
& Ors. (1974 AIR 510) while enunciating the
real scope of writ of habeas corpus, the
Supreme Court opined that while dealing with
a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court
may examine the legality of the detention
without requiring the person detained to be
produced before it

5. • In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra ,
while relaxing the traditional doctrine of locus
standi, the apex court held that if the detained
person is unable to pray for the writ of habeas
corpus, someone else may pray for such writ
on his behalf.

6. • In Sunil Bhatra V/S Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1795it has been held
that the writ of habeas corpus can be issued not only for releasing a
person from illegal detention but also for protecting prisoners from the
inhuman and barbarous treatment. the dynamic role of judicial remedies
imports to the habeas corpus writ a versatile vitality and operational
utility as bastion of liberty even within jails.
• In Veena Sethi V/S State Of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 339 In this case it was held
that the court was informed through a letter that some prisoners, who
were insane at the time of trial but subsequently declared sane, were not
released due to inaction of state authorities and had to remain in jails
from 20 to 30 years. the court directed they be released forthwith.
• In D.S Nakara v/s Union of India 1983 1 SCC 304 in this case it was held
that a registered societies, non-political, non-profit making and voluntary
organizations are entitled to file a writ petition ie, habeas corpus under
article 32 of the constitution for espousing the cause for the large number
of old infirm pensioners who are unable to approach the court
individually.

7. • In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa , the
Orissa police took away the son of the
petitioner for the purposes of interrogation &
he could not be traced. During the pendency
of the petition, his dead body was found on
railway track The petitioner was awarded
compensation of Rs. 1, 50, 000

8. Mandamus
• All India Tea Trading Co. v. S.D.O. (AIR 1962 Ass 20) case,
the Land Acquisition Officer erroneously refused to pay the
interest on compensation amount. A writ of mandamus
was issued against the Land Acquisition Officer directing
him to reconsider the application for the payment of
interest.
• In Suganmal v. State of M.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1740) case, the
petitioner (person who files the writ petition) filed for
issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent
(opposite party in the writ) for refunding tax. The Supreme
Court held that where an assessment order was set aside
and the rules concerned did not provide for refund of tax
levied, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. The proper
remedy is filing a suit for claiming the refund.

9. • In the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income
Tax Officer, Bhopal , the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
had given clear directions to the respondent Income
Tax Officer by its final order. The Income Tax Officer
had still refused to carry out the directions given by the
Tribunal. It was held by the Supreme Court that the
Income Tax officer had a mandatory duty to fulfill the
directions given by the Tribunal and non-performance
of which amounted to grave injustice. Thus, the Writ of
Mandamus was issued to direct the officer to carry out
the directions of the Tribunal.

10. • In the case of Vijaya Mehta v. State of Rajasthan,
a petition was filed in the High Court for
compelling the State to perform its duty of
appointing a commission to look into the climate
change and floods in the State. It was held by the
Court that the State Government would have to
appoint a commission only when a resolution was
passed by the Legislature, moreover, it was a
discretionary duty and not a mandatory duty, so
the Writ of Mandamus was not issued in this
case.

11. • In the case of Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhi
Chand , it was held that Ratlam Municipality was
a statutory body which owed duties to the public
such as removing night soil and rubbish, 4 AIR
1980 Raj 207 5 1977 SCR (3) 578. 6 1981 SCR (1)
97 removing any public nuisance etc. and
therefore the Writ of Mandamus was issued by
the Court to enforce these duties by the
Municipality. Thus, an application for Mandamus
can be made not only by the affected people but
also by those who want to enforce these Writs on
behalf of others in the public interest.

12. Quo Warranto
• Kumar Padma Padam Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1213)
case, Mr K.N. Srivastava was appointed as a Judge of the Gauhati
High Court by the President of India by a warrant of appointment
under his seal. A petition was filed for issuing a writ of quo-
warranto contending that Mr K.N. Srivastava was not qualified for
the office. It was held by the Supreme Court that since Mr K.N.
Srivastava was not qualified, quo warranto could be issued and
accordingly the appointment of Mr K.N. Srivastava was quashed.
• In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr D Rama (AIR 1954
Pat. 297) case, the petitioner filed an application for issuing the writ
of Quo Warranto against the Working Committee of Bihar Raj Arya
Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha, which was a private body. The High Court of
Patna refused to issue the writ of Quo Warranto because it was not
a public office

13. • Niranjan Kumar Goenka v.The University of
Bihar, Muzzfarpur7 , in which the court
observed that the Writ of Quo Warranto
cannot be issued against a person who is not
holding a public office

14. • In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v.
Dr. D Rama, an application for the Writ of Quo
Warranto was made by the petitioner in the
Patna High Court against the Working
Committee of Bihar Raj Arya Samaj Pratinidhi
Sabha which was a private body. The court
refused to issue the Writ because it was not a
public office.

15. • University of Mysore vs CD Govinda Rao [1965 AIR 491] In this case, the Supreme
Court held that the writ of Quo Warrant can be held only against an office of
‘substantive nature’. The petition was against the appointment to the post of
Research Reader in English by the University of Madras. It was held by the Court
that, on the occasion of filing such writ petition, the Court should be convinced
that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal
authority before he or she can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto.
• S. Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph [2010 (11) JT 38] In this case, the
appointment of the appellant as a member of the State Consumer Commission
was challenged on the ground that his name was not recommended by the
Selection Committee. The Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench of the
Kerala High Court was in error while issuing the writ of quo warranto, and quashed
the appellant’s appointment to the State Commission. The respondent was also
labelled as a ‘busybody’ and ‘interloper’, as he had no relation to the State
Commission and failed to prove how the appointment would adversely affect the
samiti of which he was general secretary.

16. Certiorari
• Basappa vs Nagappa[AIR 1955 SC 756] In this case, the Supreme Court
examined the writ of Certiorari under the Indian context. It was stated
that the Court does not change, or substitute the judgement of a lower
court by this writ, but rather examines the jurisdiction of the tribunal
below and observes the qualifying conditions in the course of such a
judgement being issued. The limitations and scope of this writ were
formulated in this judgement.
• Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque [1955 AIR 233] In this
judgement, the Supreme Court stated that Certiorari was not merely “an
appeal in disguise”. It does not bring order into a decision, but only
corrects any errors occurred. The case involved elections to Lok Sabha in
which the appellant complained that the ballots should be cancelled as
voters were given the wrong ballot papers. The Court made it clear that it
acts on a writ of Certiorari as a court of supervisory, not appellate
jurisdiction.

17. Prohibition

19. • Habeas corpus