CDS (II) 2020 GK Q23: Which one of the following is not the necessary condition

Q: What is the answer to CDS (II) 2020 GK Q23?

C. Correct — C, the statement that the office must not be a substantive one. It is the exact inversion of a requirement. The conditions for issuing a writ of quo warranto, as Indian courts state them following the English information in the nature of quo warranto, are four: the office must be held under the State or created by a statute or by the Constitution itself; it must be an office of a substantive character; its duties must be of a public nature; and it must have been usurped by the person holding it. A substantive office is a permanent, independent office existing in its own right, not a temporary agency or a post held at another's pleasure — and the writ lies only for such an office, which is why saying it must not be substantive turns the requirement upside down. Even where all four conditions are satisfied, the court retains a discretion to refuse the writ after weighing the consequences and the public interest.

CDS (II) 2020 General Knowledge · Question 23 of 120

Question text verified against the official CDS question paper.

Which one of the following is not the necessary condition for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto?

(a)The office must be a public office.
(b)The office must be created by the Statute or by the Constitution itself.
(c)The office must not be a substantive one.
(d)There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a Statute in appropriating such person to that office.

Answer

Why

Correct — C, the statement that the office must not be a substantive one. It is the exact inversion of a requirement. The conditions for issuing a writ of quo warranto, as Indian courts state them following the English information in the nature of quo warranto, are four: the office must be held under the State or created by a statute or by the Constitution itself; it must be an office of a substantive character; its duties must be of a public nature; and it must have been usurped by the person holding it. A substantive office is a permanent, independent office existing in its own right, not a temporary agency or a post held at another's pleasure — and the writ lies only for such an office, which is why saying it must not be substantive turns the requirement upside down. Even where all four conditions are satisfied, the court retains a discretion to refuse the writ after weighing the consequences and the public interest.

Why the others are wrong

(a)The office must be a public office. — A genuine requirement — the duties attached to the office must be of a public nature. A writ of quo warranto does not lie in respect of a private or purely contractual position.
(b)The office must be created by the Statute or by the Constitution itself. — A genuine requirement — the office must be held under the State or created by a statute or the Constitution, which is what brings it within the reach of public law.
(d)There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a Statute in appropriating such person to that office. — A genuine requirement, and the core of the writ. Quo warranto asks by what authority a person holds an office, and it succeeds only where the appointment was made in breach of the Constitution or of a statute.

Concept

Quo warranto means by what authority. It is one of the five writs the Supreme Court may issue under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226, alongside habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. Its distinctive feature is standing: unlike the other writs, it does not require the petitioner to have suffered any personal injury, because the interest it protects is the public's interest in offices being held lawfully. Any public-spirited person may therefore move for it. The remedy, if the writ issues, is to declare the holding of the office unlawful and to oust the incumbent.

This is a not-a-necessary-condition stem, and the drafting technique is to take one of the real conditions and negate it. Once you know the list of four, the negation is obvious. If you do not, there is still a way in: three of the options describe things that must be true for a court to interfere at all, and the fourth describes something that would make the writ pointless — a court will not go to the trouble of ousting someone from an office that is not substantive. A useful contrast is with mandamus, which enforces a public duty and which will not lie against a private body unless that body has been entrusted with such a duty.

Key facts

The four requisites are: the office is held under the State or created by statute; it is of a substantive character; its duties are of a public nature; and it has been usurped.
Even when all four are met, the court has a discretion to refuse the writ after weighing the consequences and the public interest.
Any public-spirited person may apply for quo warranto; personal injury is not required, unlike for most other writs.
Article 32(2) names habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari as the writs the Supreme Court may issue.
The High Courts' writ power under Article 226 is wider than the Supreme Court's, since it extends to any purpose and not only to fundamental rights.

Study next

The five writs under Articles 32 and 226, and what each one doesStanding in writ jurisdiction, and why quo warranto is open to any public-spirited personArticle 32 as itself a fundamental right, and Ambedkar's description of it as the heart and soul of the ConstitutionThe difference in scope between Article 32 and Article 226Public interest litigation and the relaxation of standing rules in Indian courts

Common traps

Assuming a negated statement in a not-a-condition stem must be about something obscure. Here it is simply the second requisite turned around.
Thinking quo warranto can be used against a private office. The duties must be public.
Believing that satisfying the four requisites compels the court to issue the writ. It remains discretionary.

As a which-writ item, a conditions-for-the-writ item, or as a statements item comparing standing rules across the writs.

Related PYQs

UPSC_2022_GS1_Q182022Open & attempt →

With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements: 1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty. 2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company. 3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto. Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer(c) 1 and 3 only

Carries the same writ into a statements format, and its third statement is the rule on standing that follows from the conditions this CDS item lists. Because the office and its duties must be public, the wrong done by a usurper is a public wrong, and any public-minded person may complain of it.

CDS_GK_2022_I_Q792022Open & attempt →

Which one of the following writs means 'you may have the body'?

(a) Habeas Corpus
(b) Mandamus
(c) Certiorari
(d) Quo Warranto

Answer(a) Habeas Corpus

The literal meanings of the writs are worth learning together, because each name states its function. You may have the body for habeas corpus, we command for mandamus, and by what authority for quo warranto — which is exactly the question a court asks about the office in this item.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
The writ of quo warranto is used for which one of the following purposes?
- (a)To produce a detained person before the court
- (b)To question the authority by which a person holds a public office
- (c)To transfer a case from a lower court to a higher court
- (d)To compel a public authority to perform its duty
Answer(b) To question the authority by which a person holds a public office — habeas corpus does the first, certiorari the third and mandamus the fourth.
practice — not a real PYQ
Which one of the following is true of the writ of quo warranto but not of most other writs?
- (a)It can be issued only by the Supreme Court
- (b)It can be sought by any public-spirited person without showing personal injury
- (c)It can be issued only during an Emergency
- (d)It lies against private individuals in their private capacity
Answer(b) It can be sought by any public-spirited person without showing personal injury — the interest protected is the public's interest in offices being lawfully held.