Writs:
Habeas Corpus:
- Latin for "to have the body of."
- Order from a court to the detaining party to produce the detainee before the court.
- The court examines the cause and legality of detention.
- If the detention is found to be illegal, the detainee is set free.
- Issued against both public authorities and private individuals.
- Not issued in cases where detention is lawful, for contempt of court or legislature, by a competent court, or outside the court's jurisdiction.
Mandamus:
- Latin for "we command."
- Order issued by the court to a public official, public body, corporation, inferior court, tribunal, or government to perform official duties they have failed or refused to perform.
- Cannot be issued against a private individual or body, to enforce departmental instructions without statutory force, when the duty is discretionary, to enforce a contractual obligation, against the President or governors, or against a high court's chief justice acting in a judicial capacity.
Prohibition:
- Means "to forbid."
- Issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or taking on a jurisdiction it does not have.
- Directs inactivity and is issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
Certiorari:
- Means "to be certified" or "to be informed."
- Issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to quash an order passed by the lower court.
- Grounds for issuance include excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction.
- Issued after the final order has been passed and quashes it.
- Like prohibition, certiorari is a jurisdictional writ.
- Can only be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
Quo Warranto:
- Means "by what authority or warrant."
- Court inquiry into the legality of a person's claim to a public office.
- Prevents illegal occupation of a public office.
- Issued for a substantive public office of a permanent character created by a statute or the Constitution.
- Cannot be issued for ministerial or private offices.
- Can be sought by any public-minded person, not just the aggrieved party.
These writs are essential tools in upholding the rule of law, safeguarding individual rights, and ensuring the proper functioning of the judicial system.
The Constitution of India provides for the issuance of writs as a remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights. These writs, which are based on English law, include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo-warranto. Both the Supreme Court and the high courts can issue these writs; however, there are significant differences between their jurisdictions. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights, while the high courts can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
Differences in Writ Jurisdiction between Supreme Court and High Courts:
Purpose:
- Supreme Court: Can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- High Courts: Can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other purpose, such as enforcing an ordinary legal right.
- Summary: The Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is narrower in purpose compared to high courts.
Territorial Jurisdiction:
- Supreme Court: Can issue writs against a person or government throughout the territory of India.
- High Courts: Can issue writs against persons or authorities located within their territorial jurisdiction, or outside their jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction.
- Summary: The Supreme Court has broader territorial jurisdiction for issuing writs than high courts.
Nature of Remedy:
- Supreme Court: Remedy under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, so the Supreme Court generally cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
- High Courts: Remedy under Article 226 is discretionary, so a high court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
- Summary: The Supreme Court is obligated to exercise its writ jurisdiction, whereas high courts have discretion in exercising theirs.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court is the defender and guarantor of fundamental rights throughout India and must provide remedies when those rights are infringed. High courts, while also empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights, have discretionary powers in deciding whether to exercise their writ jurisdiction.
