In the Indian judicial system, writs are issued by
- (a)the Supreme Court only
- (b)the High Courts only
- (c)the Supreme Court and High Courts only
- (d)the Supreme Court, High Courts and Lower Courts
Correct — C, the Supreme Court and High Courts only. The power to issue writs is conferred by two articles and by no others. Article 32 lets the Supreme Court issue directions, orders or writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari — for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and the right to move the Court under it is itself a Fundamental Right. Article 226 gives every High Court a wider power: it may issue the same writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose', which means for the enforcement of ordinary legal rights as well. Subordinate courts have no such jurisdiction. They exercise only the powers a statute gives them, and no statute confers the writ jurisdiction, which is why option (d) fails.
- (a)the Supreme Court only — Leaves out the High Courts, whose writ power under Article 226 is in fact broader than the Supreme Court's, since it extends beyond Fundamental Rights to any other purpose.
- (b)the High Courts only — Leaves out the Supreme Court, whose power under Article 32 is one of the guarantees of Part III; Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul of the Constitution.
- (d)the Supreme Court, High Courts and Lower Courts — Adds the lower courts, which have no writ jurisdiction at all. A district court can grant many remedies, but not a writ.
There are five writs. Habeas corpus produces a detained person before the court and tests the legality of the detention. Mandamus commands a public authority to perform a public duty, and will not lie against a private body unless it has been entrusted with such a duty. Prohibition is issued to a lower court or tribunal to stop proceedings beyond its jurisdiction, while certiorari quashes an order already made by such a body. Quo warranto asks by what authority a person holds a public office, and any public-spirited person may seek it. India borrowed the writs from English law, and Article 32 makes the remedy itself a Fundamental Right.
The comparison between the two articles is where the marks usually are. Article 32 is confined to Fundamental Rights but is itself a Fundamental Right, so the Supreme Court cannot refuse to entertain a petition under it in the way a High Court may decline discretionary relief. Article 226 is not a Fundamental Right, but it is wider in subject matter and also in reach, since a High Court may act where the cause of action arises within its territory even if the authority sits outside it. A candidate who remembers only 'both courts, and nobody else' will still get this item right.
- Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and the right to move the Court under it is itself a Fundamental Right.
- Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose.
- Subordinate courts have no writ jurisdiction; their powers come from statute.
- The five writs are habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto.
- Prohibition stops proceedings in a lower court or tribunal that exceed its jurisdiction; certiorari quashes an order already passed.
- Assuming the Supreme Court's writ power is wider than a High Court's. Article 226 covers more ground.
- Believing that a district or sessions court can issue habeas corpus. It cannot.
- Mixing up prohibition, which halts proceedings still going on, with certiorari, which quashes an order already made.
As a straight question on who may issue writs, or as a statements item distinguishing the five writs from one another.
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
The same jurisdiction examined at the next level of detail — not which court may issue a writ but against whom, and who may ask for one. Mandamus follows the public duty, and quo warranto may be sought by any public-minded person.
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to:
- (a) a government officer prohibiting him from taking a particular action
- (b) the Parliament/Legislative Assembly to pass a law on Prohibition
- (c) the lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case
- (d) the Government prohibiting it from following an unconstitutional policy
Answer(c) the lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case
The same two courts named as the issuing authorities, with the focus on one writ. It also shows why lower courts cannot issue writs — they are the bodies to which prohibition and certiorari are addressed.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India extends to
- (a)the enforcement of Fundamental Rights only
- (b)the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose
- (c)criminal matters only
- (d)disputes between the Union and the States
Answer(b) the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose — which makes Article 226 wider in subject matter than Article 32.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which writ is issued to a public official to compel the performance of a public duty?
- (a)Habeas corpus
- (b)Mandamus
- (c)Certiorari
- (d)Quo warranto
Answer(b) Mandamus — a command to perform a public duty, which will not lie against a private body unless it has been entrusted with one.