MPSC 2026 Prelims Paper-I · Question 74 of 100

Correct — option (2), 'Only (a), (c)'. Take the three statements in turn. Statement (a) is a textbook description of the writ: prohibition literally means 'to forbid', and it is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to stop it from exceeding its jurisdiction or from usurping a jurisdiction it does not possess. It is a preventive writ, issued while the proceedings below are still going on, and its effect is to halt them. Statement (c) states the writ's scope correctly: prohibition lies against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, that is, against bodies exercising the function of deciding disputes according to law. Statement (b) is the one that fails. Prohibition is NOT available against administrative authorities; nor is it available against legislative bodies or against private individuals and bodies. Its whole rationale is jurisdictional discipline within the adjudicating machinery, so a body that is not adjudicating is outside its reach. Two statements standing and one falling, the answer is the option that names (a) and (c) — option (2). The single most useful thing to carry away is why statement (b) is a trap rather than a mistake: the neighbouring writ of certiorari, which is often taught in the same breath as prohibition, was once similarly confined to judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, but the Supreme Court held in 1991 that certiorari can be issued even against administrative authorities where they affect the rights of individuals. Prohibition did not travel with it. The proposition in statement (b) is true of certiorari and false of prohibition, and a candidate who has learnt the two writs as a single unit will mark it correct.

• (1)Only (a), (b) — This option keeps the true statement (a) but pairs it with the false statement (b) and discards the true statement (c). It is the answer a candidate reaches by importing the post-1991 position on certiorari — that it may be issued against administrative authorities affecting individual rights — and applying it to prohibition, which was not extended in that way. Prohibition remains confined to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. Note also the shape of the trap: the option keeps the statement everybody accepts and swaps the disputed pair, so a candidate who verifies only the first statement and then scans for an option containing it can land here.
• (3)Only (b), (c) — This option drops the plainest statement in the set, (a), which is simply the definition of the writ, and retains the false statement (b). Statement (a) is correct in every particular: prohibition runs from a higher court to a lower court or tribunal, and its object is to prevent that body from exceeding its jurisdiction. There is no reading on which it can be rejected. An option that discards the one statement you are certain of should be discarded in turn — a useful discipline in statement-based questions generally, because it lets you eliminate on the basis of what you know rather than on the basis of what you are guessing.
• (4)All of the above — 'All of the above' is offered eleven times in this paper, and this is one of them. An option of this kind is correct only when every statement in the set can be positively shown to hold, and it is wrong the moment a single one fails. Here statement (b) fails: prohibition does not lie against administrative agencies. So the option collapses. Note the useful working rule this illustrates — an escape option is never a refuge from uncertainty. If you cannot establish each statement independently, 'all of the above' is a guess dressed as an answer; if you can, you did not need the shortcut in the first place.

The Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 may issue five writs, and each has a distinct target and reach. HABEAS CORPUS, 'to have the body of', orders a person detaining another to produce him before the court, which then examines the legality of the detention and frees him if it is unlawful; it lies against both public authorities and private individuals. MANDAMUS, 'we command', orders a public official or body to perform a public duty it has failed or refused to perform; it does not lie against a private individual, nor to enforce a discretionary duty or a contractual obligation, nor against the President or a Governor. PROHIBITION, 'to forbid', runs from a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to stop it exceeding its jurisdiction, and lies only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. CERTIORARI, 'to be certified', runs from a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a pending case to itself or to quash the order already made, on grounds of excess or want of jurisdiction or error of law. QUO WARRANTO, 'by what authority', enquires into the legality of a person's claim to a public office.

Prohibition and certiorari are the pair examiners work hardest, because they run between the same courts and differ on two axes that are easy to blur. The first is TIMING: prohibition is preventive and is issued while the proceedings below are still pending, stopping them before an order is made; certiorari is both preventive and curative, and can be issued after the order to quash it. The second is REACH: prohibition lies only against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, while certiorari, which was originally confined in the same way, was extended by a 1991 ruling of the Supreme Court to administrative authorities whose decisions affect the rights of individuals. Neither writ lies against a legislative body or a private person. Two further contrasts complete the picture. Quo warranto is available only for a substantive public office of a permanent character created by statute or by the Constitution, not for a private or ministerial office — and, uniquely among the writs, any interested person may seek it, not only the person aggrieved. Habeas corpus is the only writ that runs against private individuals as freely as against the State.

• Prohibition means 'to forbid'. It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction it does not possess. It is preventive, issued while proceedings are still pending.
• Prohibition lies ONLY against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. It is not available against administrative authorities, legislative bodies, or private individuals and bodies.
• Certiorari, its close relative, means 'to be certified'. It transfers a pending case to the higher court or quashes an order already made, on grounds of excess or want of jurisdiction or error of law, and is both preventive and curative.
• Certiorari was originally confined to judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it can be issued even against administrative authorities affecting the rights of individuals. Prohibition was not extended in this way — which is exactly what makes statement (b) false.
• The five writs are issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and by the High Courts under Article 226. Habeas corpus lies against private persons as well as the State; mandamus commands the performance of a public duty; quo warranto tests a claim to a substantive public office and may be sought by any interested person.

• Carrying certiorari's post-1991 reach over to prohibition. Certiorari can go against administrative authorities affecting individual rights; prohibition cannot, and this exact swap is what statement (b) is built on.
• Marking 'All of the above' when two of three statements check out. One failing statement destroys the option, and this paper offers that option eleven times.
• Forgetting the timing distinction — prohibition is issued while proceedings are pending, whereas certiorari can also quash an order that has already been made.

Writs are among the most heavily set topics in the whole polity syllabus, and they arrive in three shapes. The definition question names a writ and asks what it does or against whom it lies — UPSC's 2024 item on prohibition is exactly this. The statement question, which is this paper's shape, offers several propositions about one writ and asks which hold, with the administrative-authorities point and the preventive-versus-curative point supplying most of the falsifiers. The scenario question describes a situation — a tribunal about to decide a matter outside its powers, an official refusing a statutory duty, a person occupying an office he is not qualified for — and asks which writ fits. All three are answered from one table, and the discriminations that decide marks are almost always the exceptions rather than the definitions.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which one of the following writs can be issued against an administrative authority whose decision affects the rights of an individual?

  • (a)Prohibition
  • (b)Certiorari
  • (c)Quo warranto
  • (d)None of these

  Answer(b) Certiorari — originally confined, like prohibition, to judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, it was extended by a 1991 ruling of the Supreme Court to administrative authorities whose decisions affect individual rights. Prohibition was not extended in the same way and still lies only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A tribunal is about to decide a matter that lies wholly outside the powers conferred on it by its parent statute. Which writ is the appropriate remedy to stop it before it decides?

  • (a)Mandamus
  • (b)Habeas corpus
  • (c)Prohibition
  • (d)Quo warranto

  Answer(c) Prohibition — the preventive writ, issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal while proceedings are still pending, to stop it exceeding or usurping jurisdiction. Had the tribunal already passed the order, the remedy would be certiorari, which quashes what has been done.