Which one of the following is not a writ?
- (a)Mandamus
- (b)Habeas Corpus
- (c)Certiorari
- (d)Severability
Correct — D, Severability. The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) to issue five writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto. Mandamus, Habeas Corpus and Certiorari are three of these. Severability is not a writ at all — it is the doctrine of severability (linked to Article 13) under which, if part of a law is unconstitutional, only that part is struck down while the valid remainder survives. So the item that is not a writ is severability.
- (a)Mandamus — Mandamus ('we command') is a genuine writ directing a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to do, so it is a writ.
- (b)Habeas Corpus — Habeas Corpus ('to have the body') is a writ used to test the legality of a person's detention, so it is one of the five writs.
- (c)Certiorari — Certiorari is a writ by which a higher court quashes or transfers a case decided by a lower court or tribunal, so it too is a writ.
Writs are formal court orders that protect Fundamental Rights and enforce legal duties. The Constitution recognises five: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto. The Supreme Court issues them under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226. Severability, by contrast, is a doctrine of judicial review, not an order the court issues to a party.
The trap places three real writs beside a legal term that also comes from constitutional law. Recall the closed list of five writs, and severability — a doctrine, not an order — stands out as the odd one.
- The five writs are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto.
- The Supreme Court issues writs under Article 32; High Courts issue them under Article 226.
- Article 226 gives High Courts a wider writ power (for rights and 'any other purpose') than Article 32.
- Severability is a doctrine linked to Article 13, not a writ.
- Mistaking severability, a doctrine of judicial review, for a writ because it is a constitutional-law term.
- Forgetting that the list of writs is closed at five — Prohibition and Quo Warranto are the other two.
Asked as 'which is not a writ' — recall the closed set of five writs and reject the doctrine that sneaks in.
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
Same concept — the writs (Mandamus and Quo Warranto). That UPSC item probes how Mandamus and Quo Warranto operate; this NDA item tests which term in the list is not a writ at all.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The writ issued to secure the release of a person from unlawful detention is
- (a)Mandamus
- (b)Habeas Corpus
- (c)Quo Warranto
- (d)Certiorari
Answer(b) Habeas Corpus — it tests the legality of a detention.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Supreme Court's power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights flows from which Article?
- (a)Article 32
- (b)Article 226
- (c)Article 136
- (d)Article 143
Answer(a) Article 32 — the right to constitutional remedies.