Which of the following conditions is/are necessary for the issue of a writ of certiorari in India? 1. There should be a tribunal or an officer having legal authority to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and having a duty to act judicially. 2. Such tribunal or officer has acted without jurisdiction. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Correct — C, Both 1 and 2. Certiorari is a corrective writ: the higher court calls up the record of a decision already taken and quashes it. Its classical conditions come from Lord Atkin's formula in Rex v. Electricity Commissioners, quoted by the Supreme Court of India in Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani in 1950 — 'Whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these writs.' Read that sentence against the two statements and both are inside it. Statement 1 is the first half: there must be a tribunal or officer with legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and that body must be under a duty to act judicially. Statement 2 is the second half: the body must have gone beyond, or acted without, the jurisdiction it had. Neither condition can be dropped. A body with no power to decide rights at all leaves nothing to quash, and a tribunal that stays inside its jurisdiction has committed no error certiorari corrects. The writ is issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and by the High Courts under Article 226.
- (a)1 only — Retains the description of the body but drops the defect. A properly constituted tribunal deciding within its jurisdiction is not touched by certiorari, however unwelcome its decision.
- (b)2 only — Retains the defect but drops the body. Acting without jurisdiction means nothing unless there was legal authority to determine questions affecting rights in the first place — that is what the writ is directed at.
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2 — Rejects both halves of the very formula Indian courts use. Both statements are lifted from the classical test that the Supreme Court adopted in 1950 and has applied since.
Certiorari, Latin for 'to be certified' or 'to be informed', is one of the five writs the Supreme Court may issue under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226. It lies against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, and the grounds are excess or want of jurisdiction, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and violation of the principles of natural justice. It is corrective and comes after the decision; prohibition is its preventive twin and stops proceedings while they are still running.
The safe way to handle a writ item is to ask what the writ does and then read each condition against that. Certiorari quashes a decision, so it needs two things to exist — a decision-making body of the right kind, and something wrong with the way it exercised its power. Both statements supply exactly one of those, which is why neither can be discarded. One genuine development worth knowing, because it cuts against the older textbooks: the requirement of a 'duty to act judicially' has been read down over the decades, and certiorari and the other writs now reach administrative action too where it affects rights and is taken without a fair hearing. The paper is testing the classical formulation, and that formulation still frames the answer.
- Certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and by the High Courts under Article 226; the High Courts' writ power under Article 226 is wider, extending to any legal right and not only fundamental rights.
- The classical test comes from Rex v. Electricity Commissioners, 1924, and was adopted by the Supreme Court in Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani, 1950.
- The recognised grounds are lack or excess of jurisdiction, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and a breach of natural justice.
- Certiorari is corrective and quashes an order already made; prohibition is preventive and halts proceedings that are still going on.
- The five writs are habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto.
Both conditions in the question describe certiorari's target and its trigger — the body, and the defect.
- Treating certiorari as available against private persons; it runs against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities exercising legal power.
- Mixing up certiorari and prohibition — the first quashes what is done, the second stops what is being done.
- Assuming a wrong decision is enough; the error must go to jurisdiction, appear on the face of the record, or involve a denial of natural justice.
Either as a statements item on the conditions for a particular writ, or as a match-the-writ-to-its-meaning item across all five.
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 drill on the neighbouring writs. Each writ carries its own conditions on who may be proceeded against and who may ask, and the papers test those conditions statement by statement rather than testing the definitions.
Which one of the following is not a writ?
- (a) Mandamus
- (b) Habeas Corpus
- (c) Certiorari
- (d) Severability
Answer(d) Severability
A reminder that the list of writs is closed at five. Severability is a doctrine used when part of a law is struck down, not a remedy a court issues.
CDS_GK_2020_II_Q232020Which 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(c) The office must not be a substantive one.
The same paper-setter's habit applied to quo warranto — take the classical conditions and ask which one is misstated. The office must be substantive, so the negation in that option is what makes it the odd one out.
CDS_GK_2022_I_Q792022Which 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 easy version of the same syllabus point. Knowing what each writ's Latin name literally says is the first step, and the conditions asked in the 2023 paper are the second.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which one of the following writs is preventive rather than corrective, stopping a tribunal from continuing proceedings beyond its jurisdiction?
- (a)Certiorari
- (b)Prohibition
- (c)Quo warranto
- (d)Habeas corpus
Answer(b) Prohibition — it is issued while the proceedings are still pending, whereas certiorari quashes an order already passed.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under which article of the Constitution do the High Courts of India issue writs, including certiorari?
- (a)Article 32
- (b)Article 131
- (c)Article 226
- (d)Article 356
Answer(c) Article 226 — and that power is wider than the Supreme Court's under Article 32, since it extends to the enforcement of ordinary legal rights as well as fundamental rights.