In the Indian legal system writs are a strong constitutional tool to enforce fundamental rights and maintain legal accountability. The Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 have the power to issue writs for protection to individual persons, authorities and bodies that infringe legal or fundamental rights. These writs are necessary to prevent administrative and judicial excesses, ensure justice and prevent public officials and authorities from going beyond their assigned limits.
The blog gives a thorough account of the five kinds of writs, their jurisdictional reach and operation by virtue of recent judicial precedents.
Different Kinds Of Writs In India
1. Habeas Corpus
The writ of Habeas Corpus is rendered to secure order in situations of unlawful detention or imprisonment. It directs the authority to present the person in custody before the court and state the reasons for his detention. If the detainee is not found to be lawfully detained, he is to be released at once. This writ may be issued against any person, state authority, or private person committing wrongful confinement.
Example: In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court re-articulated the constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, taking note of the significance of Habeas Corpus in the case of unlawful detention.
2. Mandamus
A Mandamus is issued to the authority in question directing them to perform some duty which they have failed to perform. It is issued in order to ensure that the state organizations do not act arbitrarily or beyond their jurisdiction. However, it cannot be directed to private citizens or to the legislature.
Example: In Shefali Jain v. Delhi University (2021), the Delhi High Court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the University to admit a student who had been illegally denied admission, thus recognizing the educational rights and duty of the administration.
3. Prohibition
A writ of prohibition is granted by the Supreme Court or High Court to an inferior court or tribunal forbidding it from hearing a case by reason of the fact that it is acted with absence of jurisdiction. In other words, this kind of writ prevents a judicial authority or tribunal from hearing such a case that is not within its jurisdiction.
Example: In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India (1967), the Supreme Court held that a writ of prohibition can only be issued against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities and not by executive actions.
4. Certiorari
Certiorari is granted by a superior court to set aside an order or decree passed by an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial body in excess of jurisdiction or disregard. The main difference between Certiorari and Prohibition is that the Prohibition is granted prior to a decision being given while Certiorari is granted after a decision has already been made.
In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) Supreme Court held that Certiorari can be granted not only against judicial forums but also on administrative organizations exercising quasi-judicial powers.
5. Quo Warranto
Quo Warranto writ is served to stop an unlicensed person from occupying or taking offices. It allows the judiciary to determine if an appointment was made in violation of constitutional or statutory requirements. Quo Warranto tests the legal authority or authority of an individual to occupy an office. The Supreme Court held that Quo Warranto ensures that public offices are not filled by persons who do not possess the requisite legal qualifications either.
Key Differences Between Similar Writs
Writ | Purpose | Issued Against | Key Difference |
Habeas Corpus | Ensures release from unlawful detention | Government authorities, private individuals | Protects personal liberty |
Mandamus | Compels a public official to perform a legal duty | Public officials, bodies, courts | Cannot be issued against private individuals |
Prohibition | Prevents a lower court from exceeding jurisdiction | Lower courts, tribunals | Stops proceedings before judgment |
Certiorari | Quashes an unlawful order | Lower courts, tribunals, administrative bodies | Cancels a decision already made |
Quo Warranto | Challenges the legality of a public office holder | Individuals occupying public positions | Ensures only legally qualified persons hold office |
Conclusion
Indian courts’ writ jurisdiction is an essential mechanism of judicial review and constitutional safeguard. Writs enable courts to restrain executive excesses, enforce compliance with legal obligations, prevent judicial encroachment, and uphold the purity of public offices. The effective application of writs in different legal arenas highlights their role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring the rule of law. Familiarity with jurisdictional reach and extent of application of writs plays a central role in assuring judicial remedies to clients undergoing administrative or constitutional wrongdoing.
Author- Naman Dutt, Senior Associate
Co-Author – Mahima Rathore, Associate
