What Are Writs?

 

A writ is a formal ruling from the Supreme Court or a lower court that directs constitutional remedies for Indian citizens who have had their fundamental rights violated. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution covers the constitutional remedies that an Indian citizen may seek from the Supreme Court of India and the High Court in response to a violation of his or her fundamental rights. The Supreme Court can issue writs to enforce rights under the same article, while the High Court can do the same under Article 226.

How writs can be invoked?

Writs can be invoked by filing a petition before the Supreme Court or High Court under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. The process involves:

1. Filing a Petition – The aggrieved party must submit a writ petition to the appropriate court, stating the violation of fundamental or legal rights.
2. Jurisdiction Consideration – The Supreme Court entertains writs for fundamental rights violations, while High Courts can issue writs for both fundamental and legal rights violations.
3. Court’s Examination – The court assesses the case to determine if the writ should be granted based on the merits and legal grounds.
4. Issuance of the Writ – If justified, the court issues the writ, directing the concerned authority or individual to comply with the order.

Objective and Reasons of Writs

Objective of Writs

The primary objective of writs is to ensure the protection and enforcement of fundamental and legal rights of individuals. Writs act as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary actions by the government, authorities, or individuals.

The main objectives are:

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights – To ensure that citizens’ rights under the Constitution are upheld.
2. Judicial Control Over Authorities – To prevent abuse of power by public officials, tribunals, and lower courts.
3. Prevention of Unlawful Actions – To restrain authorities from acting beyond their jurisdiction.
4. Correction of Legal Errors – To quash illegal orders and correct judicial mistakes.
5. Ensuring Fairness & Justice – To uphold the principles of natural justice and due process.

Reasons for Issuing Writs

A writ may be issued in the following situations:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights – If an individual’s fundamental rights (such as freedom of speech, right to life, or right to equality) are denied.
2. Illegal Detention – If a person is unlawfully detained or arrested without legal justification.
3. Failure of Public Duty – If a public official refuses to perform their legal duty or misuses their power.
4. Excess of Jurisdiction – If a lower court, tribunal, or authority acts beyond its legal powers.
5. Breach of Natural Justice – If a legal or administrative decision is made unfairly without giving a proper hearing.
6. Holding a Public Office Illegally – If a person occupies a public office without legal qualification or authority.

Key Elements and Essentials of Writs

Writs are legal remedies issued by courts to protect fundamental and legal rights. To be valid, a writ must fulfill certain key elements and essential conditions.

Key Elements of a Writ

1. Judicial Order – A writ is a formal command issued by a court to an individual, authority, or lower court.
2. Legal Obligation – It directs a party to either perform or refrain from a specific action.
3. Protection of Rights – It safeguards fundamental or legal rights of individuals.
4. Jurisdiction of Court – Writs can be issued by the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226).
5. Public Interest or Individual Grievance – It can be invoked for personal grievances or in the interest of the public (PILs).
6. Binding Nature – Once issued, compliance with a writ is mandatory for the party concerned.

Essentials for Issuing a Writ

1. Legal Standing (Locus Standi) – The petitioner must have a direct interest in the matter, except in cases of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
2. Violation of Rights – There must be an actual or imminent violation of a fundamental or legal right.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court – The writ must be filed in the appropriate court based on the nature of the violation.
4. No Alternative Remedy – Generally, a writ is issued only if no other effective legal remedy is available.
5. Timely Filing – The petitioner must not delay unreasonably in seeking relief.
6. Nature of the Writ – The type of writ requested must align with the legal grievance (e.g., Habeas Corpus for illegal detention, Mandamus for failure of duty).

Types of Writs in India

The Supreme Court of India safeguards the fundamental rights of citizens through its extensive and original powers. It has the authority to issue five types of writs to uphold these rights. The five types of writs are:

1. Habeas Corpus
2. Mandamus
3. Prohibition
4. Certiorari
5. Quo Warranto

 

1. Habeas Corpus: Meaning “you have the body,” this writ is issued to an individual or authority detaining someone, requiring them to present the detained person before the court. Its purpose is to examine the legality of the detention and safeguard personal freedom by preventing unlawful imprisonment.

Case Laws:

Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)

The Supreme Court declared the arrest and detention of Bhim Singh, an MLA, unlawful, ruling that it violated his fundamental rights. The Court underscored the significance of protecting citizens’ liberty, particularly that of elected representatives, and awarded him exemplary compensation.

 

Key Points from the Case:

 

1. Unlawful Arrest and Detention:
   • The Court held that Bhim Singh’s arrest was arbitrary and illegal, infringing on his fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom.
2. Violation of Constitutional Protections:
   • The ruling highlighted the breach of Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 22(2) (right to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours) of the Indian Constitution.
3. Upholding Individual Liberty:
   • The judgment reinforced the need to safeguard citizens’ personal liberty, especially that of elected officials, and warned against law enforcement agencies misusing their authority.
4. Exemplary Compensation as a Deterrent:
   • The Court awarded financial compensation to Bhim Singh, both as a remedy for the rights violation and as a deterrent against future misconduct by authorities.

 

2. Mandamus: Translating to “we command,” this writ directs a public official or body to fulfill a duty that they are legally required to perform. It ensures action in cases where there has been an unjustified failure to act.

Case Laws:

Barada Kanta Adhikary vs. The State of West Bengal (1962)

The court ruled that the petitioner, a temporary instructor, was not entitled to the same protections as a permanent government employee since his appointment was temporary and lacked a specific contract or a defined service duration.

Key Points from the Case:

1. Temporary Appointment:

• The petitioner’s appointment letter explicitly stated that his service was temporary.

2. No Permanent Employment Status:

• The petitioner was never granted permanent status, and there was no special contract or specified duration for his employment.

3. Opportunity to Respond:

• The court noted that the petitioner was given a chance to present his case before his services were terminated.

4. Lawful Termination:

• The court found that the termination of the petitioner’s employment was not unlawful and did not breach any principles of natural justice.

 

3. Certiorari: Meaning “to be certified,” this writ instructs a lower court to send case records to a higher court for review. It is used to rectify legal errors or jurisdictional overreach, ensuring proper judicial oversight.

Case Laws:

Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Syed Ahmed Ishaque(1954)

In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque (1954), an election tribunal decided on a matter outside its legal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court issued certiorari to quash the tribunal’s decision, asserting that jurisdictional overreach cannot be tolerated.

4. Prohibition: Translating to “to forbid,” this writ is issued by a higher court to prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting beyond its legal authority. It serves as a safeguard against judicial overreach.

Who Can Apply for a Writ of Prohibition?

An individual whose rights have been violated can seek a writ of prohibition.

When Can a Writ of Prohibition Be Issued?

• If a lower court or quasi-judicial body exceeds its jurisdiction.
• If a lower court exercises authority without lawful jurisdiction.
• If a lower court or quasi-judicial body violates the principles of natural justice.
• If there is an evident error in the judicial record.

When Is a Writ of Prohibition Not Granted?

• When the court operates within its lawful jurisdiction.
• When the court adheres to the principles of natural justice.

 

5. Quo Warranto: Meaning “by what authority,” this writ challenges an individual’s right to hold a public office or exercise certain powers. It ensures that only legally entitled persons occupy positions of authority.

Case Laws:

Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha vs. Dr. D. Ram (1954)

The Patna High Court declined to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against the Working Committee of the Bihar Raj Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha, ruling that it was a private organization and not a public office.

Key Points from the Case:

1. Nature of the Organization:
   • The Bihar Raj Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha was a private entity, not a public institution or government body.
2. Writ of Quo Warranto:
   • The petitioner sought a writ of Quo Warranto, a legal remedy used to challenge the authority of individuals holding public offices.
3. Court’s Decision:
   • The Patna High Court ruled that a writ of Quo Warranto can only be applied to individuals unlawfully holding a public office, not a private one.
4. Outcome of the Case:
   • The court rejected the petition for the writ of Quo Warranto, as the organization in question was a private association, not a public office.

Conclusion

Our basic structure includes the right to a protected cure, which cannot be taken away. According to Articles 32 and 226 of our Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Court, respectively, have the primary authority to grant the writ.