Litigation is a valued form of litigation to protect the fundamental

human, social and economic rights. As a sequel to the above discussion,

salient features of the public interest litigation therefore can be
summarized as under:--
(i)         Ensures access to justice.
(ii)        Makes public authorities accountable.
(iii)       Enhances transparency in public actions.
(iv)       Fulfills constitutional promises.
(v)        Promotes confidence in use of Judicial Institutions.
(vi)       Allows neglected public interests to be attended:
Basic Civic necessities and healthy environments etc.
(vii)      Ensures protection to life, liberty, property of the citizens.
(viii)     Ensures inexpensive and speedy justice to the poor,
unprivileged, weaker people and sections of the society.
(ix)       Makes the illiterate people conscious of their fundamental
human rights.
(x)        Enforces Rules of Law.

WHO CAN APPROACH COURT UNDER

WRIT JURISDICTION?
The general principle is that the locus standi to approach the Supreme Court or
High Court for enforcement of rights belongs to the person whose fundamental
rights has been infringed. In common law, by the way of Public Interest
Litigation(PIL) the locus standi to approach the court has been relaxed and
stretched to a public-spirited third party.
 WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT WRITS
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION?
The Supreme Court and High Courts shall have the power to issue directions or
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights[ii] in part III of the Constitution. Hence, the
five writs are,

Writs Origin Meaning

1. habeas corpus  Latin You may have the body

2. mandamus  Latin We command

3. prohibition  English To stop/ forbid

4. quo warranto  Latin By what authority

5. certiorari  Latin To be Certified

HABEAS CORPUS
This writ has been described as the writ of right which is grantable ex debito
justitae. The writ of habeas corpus is used to secure the release of a person
who has been detained unlawfully or without lawful justification. Value of the
writ is an immediate determination of a person‘s right to freedom
 WHEN CAN DETENTION BE CALLED
UNLAWFUL?
Detention may be UNlawful if inter alia it is,

1. not in accordance with the law or

2. the procedure established by has not been strictly followed in detaining
a person or

 there is no valid law to authorize detention or

1. the law is invalid because it infringes a fundamental right or

2. Is made under legislation enacted exciting its limits.[iii]

Articles of the Constitution provides for the rights of a person under detention
and provides for the right to personal liberty.

This writ of Habeas Corpus may be prayed by the prisoner or the person
detained himself or his relatives may also pray before the court on his behalf to
question the validity of detention or curtailment of his personal liberty

Other than against the state, Habeas Corpus may also be issued against illegal
custody or detention by the private person. This writ can also be evoked for
custody of an infant, where the court may adjudicate and award the custody of
infant proper person.[iv]

MANDAMUS
The writ of mandamus is issued to enforce the performance of public duties by
authorities of all kinds. The court may command a public authority to perform
duty belonging to the office of statutory nature. The object is to prevent the
disorder from a failure of justice, where justice despite demanded has not been
granted. Mandamus is a very wide remedy and which must be easily available
to reach injustice wherever it is found technicalities should not come in the way
of granting this relief.

In Common-law the courts do not only issue mandamus for the performance of
a duty of public character but also has recognized promissory estoppel and
legitimate expectations as the cause of action for evoking the mandamus
jurisdiction.

To maintain a balance of power and to avoid abuse of power there are certain
conditions in which this writ cannot be issued,

 Mandamus cannot be issued against the government to perform non-

statutory functions.
 Mandamus cannot be issued against the government directing it to
approve the rules made by the court regarding the salary et cetera of
the staff.
 Mandamus cannot be issued to direct the government on the matters
in which the government has discretionary or optional power.
 Mandamus cannot be issued for the rights of purely private nature.
 Mandamus cannot be issued to compel it to pass an order in violation
of statutory provisions.

Although the court cannot issue a writ of mandamus quashing the decision
made by the state using its discretionary powers yet, the court can quash the
order if the discretion has been abused or not properly exercise or if the
decision is taken on purely political consideration without any material.

PROHIBITION
The writ of prohibition is also called as preventive writ. Prohibition is issuable
before the proceedings are completed. It is issued to restrain a lower court from
acting under an unconstitutional law. In the absence of very cogent and strong
reason issuance of the writ of prohibition is improper. It was pointed out since,
under CPC, the civil court has sufficient power to decide its own jurisdiction and
the High Court erred in interfering by Prohibition and directed the civil court to
decide preliminary issues as the maintainability of the suit and applicability/
estoppels.

The writ of prohibition is issued inter alia on the following grounds,

 when the body concerned proceed to act without or excess of

jurisdiction, or
 fails to exercise its jurisdiction, or
o there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in
the impugned decision of the body, or
 the findings of fact reached by the inferior tribunal are based on no
evidence, or
 it proceeds to act in violation of the principles of natural justice, or
 it proceeds to act under a law which itself invalid, ultra vires or
unconstitutional, or
o it proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights[v]

QUO WARRANTO
This writ calls upon the holder of a public office to show to the court under what
authority he is holding that office. Its views to restrain a person from acting in
the public capacity which he is not entitled to.

The Court may oust a person from an office to which he is not entitled. It is
issued against the usurper of the office and the appointing authority is not a
party. The Court can thus control election or appointment to the office against
the law and protect from being deprived of a public office in which he may be
entitled.
The writ lies only in respect of a public office of a substantial character. The
motive of appointing an officer in making the appointment in question is
irrelevant in a Quo Warranto petition.
This writ cannot be issued against the appointment of a council of ministers,
chief ministers, and governors. neither can it question the authority of private
institutions to hold an office of a private character.

CERTIORARI
The writ of certiorari is issued to quash the decision after the decision has
already been taken by a lower Tribunal. It may be that in the proceeding before
an inferior court the High Court may have issued both prohibitions to prohibit
the body from proceeding and certiorari further to invalidate what it has already
been done by it.

The jurisdiction to issue certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the High

Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court.

But it is issued against the act or proceedings of judicial or quasi-judicial body

where it has not acted judicially. Since the courts are obliged to act in a certain
manner the court can issue this writ even when the list is between private
individuals.

As stated in the law lied down in Syed Yakoob v. K.S.

Radhakrishnan  Certiorari can be issued in following grounds,

 when the body concerned proceed to act without or excess of

jurisdiction, or
 fails to exercise its jurisdiction, or
o there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in
the impugned decision of the body, or
 the findings of fact reached by the inferior tribunal are based on no
evidence, or
 it proceeds to act in violation of the principles of natural justice, or
 it proceeds to act under a law which itself invalid, ultra vires or
unconstitutional, or
o it proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights[vi]