The Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 to issue writs to protect citizens’ fundamental rights, and in the case of High Courts, even other legal rights. These writs act as a check on government and administrative authorities, ensuring they do not misuse power and that justice is upheld.
The five constitutional writs—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto—form the core of constitutional remedies in India. For example, if a person is arrested illegally without being informed of the reason, their family can approach the court to issue Habeas Corpus, requiring the authorities to justify the detention or release the person.
-
Habeas Corpus
Meaning: “Produce the body”
Article: 32 and 226
Habeas Corpus (“Produce the Body”)
This writ is issued to release a person who is unlawfully detained or imprisoned.
It protects personal liberty. The Court examines whether the detention is lawful and orders release if found unconstitutional.
Example
If a person is arrested without lawful justification and not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, the court may issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the authorities to release the detained person. This writ can also be filed when police detain a citizen without informing them of the charges or without following the due process of law. In such situations, the detained person, or even their family or friends, may approach the court seeking immediate relief against illegal detention.
Landmark Case: In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court said that during the Emergency, people could not file a writ of Habeas Corpus, even if they were illegally detained. This decision was criticized because it weakened personal liberty.
Later, in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled this judgment and held that fundamental rights, especially the rights to liberty and dignity, cannot be taken away by the State, even during difficult times.
-
Mandamus
Meaning: “We command”
Article: 32 and 226
Mandamus is a writ issued by the court to a public authority, government body, or government official when they fail to perform a duty that the law requires them to do. If such an authority refuses or neglects a legal responsibility, the court can issue Mandamus directing them to carry out that duty.
Example
If a student is eligible for admission to a government college but the college denies admission without a valid reason, the student may approach the court for a writ of Mandamus. The court can then direct the college to grant admission. Similarly, if a government authority refuses to issue a license even after all legal requirements are fulfilled, the affected person can request a Mandamus order to compel the authority to take the required action.
Not Issued Against:
- Private individuals
- The President or Governors (due to constitutional immunity)
- Judges acting in a judicial capacity
Landmark Case: Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana (1977) is the landmark Supreme Court judgment defining the prerequisites for a Writ of Mandamus. It established the core principle that “No Legal Right, No Mandamus,” meaning a petitioner must prove a judicially enforceable legal right and a corresponding duty on the authority to be granted relief.
-
Prohibition
Meaning: A writ to “prohibit” a subordinate court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law.
Article: 32 and 226
A writ of Prohibition is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal when it is acting beyond its legal authority or committing an error of jurisdiction. It prevents the lower body from continuing such proceedings, making it a preventive remedy.
Example
If a District Court begins hearing a case that legally falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of a High Court—for example, certain constitutional matters—the High Court may issue a writ of Prohibition to stop the District Court from continuing the proceedings. This writ prevents lower courts or tribunals from acting beyond their legal authority or jurisdiction.
Landmark Case: In East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1962), the Supreme Court clarified that a writ of Prohibition can be issued to prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law. The Court emphasized that Prohibition is a preventive remedy ensuring lawful exercise of judicial power.
-
Certiorari
Meaning: “To be certified” or “to be informed”
Article: 32 and 226
A writ of Certiorari is issued by a higher court to quash or review an order passed by a lower court or tribunal when it has acted without proper jurisdiction, violated legal procedure, ignored principles of natural justice, or made a clear error of law. Unlike Prohibition, which prevents future action, Certiorari is both corrective and preventive because it cancels the wrongful decision and stops further illegal proceedings.
Example
If a tribunal passes an order without giving the affected person an opportunity to be heard, the High Court or Supreme Court may issue a writ of Certiorari to cancel that order. In cases where a tribunal delivers a judgment without following the principles of natural justice—for example, deciding a case without hearing the accused—the court can use Certiorari to set aside the decision and correct the violation.
Landmark Case: Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959) expanded the scope of Certiorari to administrative bodies performing quasi-judicial functions. The Supreme Court quashed a nationalization scheme because the hearing authority showed official bias, affirming that principles of natural justice must be strictly followed in administrative decision-making.
-
Quo Warranto
Meaning: “By what authority?”
Article: 32 and 226
A writ of Quo Warranto is issued to prevent a person from occupying a public office without legal authority or required qualification. It challenges the person’s right to hold that position and restrains them from continuing in office if they are not legally entitled to it.
Example
If a person is appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of a university without fulfilling the required qualifications, the court may issue a writ of Quo Warranto to question their authority and remove them from the post. This remedy ensures transparency in public appointments and prevents individuals from occupying public offices illegally or without meeting eligibility criteria.
Landmark Case: In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1964), the Supreme Court defined the scope of Quo Warranto, holding that the court may question the legality of a person’s appointment to a public office. The judgment emphasized that Quo Warranto prevents unlawful occupation of public posts and promotes transparency, accountability, and good governance.
Conclusion
The writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 acts as a powerful constitutional tool to protect citizens from the arbitrary or unlawful actions of public authorities. While Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right and guarantees direct access to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 226 gives High Courts wider powers to issue writs for both fundamental rights and other legal rights. Together, these writ remedies ensure accountability, uphold the rule of law, and safeguard individual freedoms, making them an essential part of India’s democratic legal framework.
Related Articles:
A Study On: WRIT And Its Types
5 Types Of Writs In Indian Constitution
Types of Writs In Indian Constitution
Role Of Writs In Administrative Law
Writs Under Indian Constitution
Writ Jurisdiction of Courts in India
Writs in Indian society & its execution
Writs Issued by High Courts and the Supreme Court
Writs under Indian Constitution and its jurisdiction in courts
Significance of Writ Jurisdiction in the Indian Judicial System
Guardians of Rights: Exploring India’s Supreme Court Types of Writs
A Comprehensive Guide To Types Of Writs In The Indian Constitution
The Power of Writs: How Articles 32 and 226 Protect Fundamental Rights in India
Article 32: Your Writ Jurisdiction Roadmap to Justice and Right to constitutional remedies
