Introduction

A writ is an order by a court, directing lower courts to either do something or not do

something. The concept of a writ was first developed by the Anglo-Saxons in England. The
Monarch would issue letters which held orders and directions. Since then, writs have been
incorporated by various countries into their legal systems. India has also done so,
empowering the Supreme Court and the High Courts to issue such writs.

Prerogative writs under Indian law

Writs under Indian law are prerogative writs, a subset of writs, which are issued as an
extraordinary remedy for aggrieved persons. The power to issue prerogative writs has been
granted by the Constitution under Article 266 to the High Courts and to the Supreme Court
under Article 32. It is a discretionary power which means that the High Court may or may not
issue a writ.

Exhaustion of Alternative remedies before moving to High Court

A prerogative writ is also known as an extraordinary writ because it is only issued when
alternative remedies have been exhausted. Although this restriction does not extend to the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The court has laid down a precedent for the same.

This is known as the rule of exhaustion of remedies. The court has justified the same in the
case of Union of India v. T.R. Varma AIR 1957 SC 882 and held that the rule of exhaustion
exists so that a person is not allowed to circumvent existing statutory proceedings by
approaching the High Court under Article 226

Further, the Supreme Court has provided in the cases of U.P. Jal Nigam v. Nareshwar Sahai
Mathur  1 SCC 21 and Tigahur Paper Mills Co. Ltd v. State of Orissa 142 ITR 663, certain
grounds on which the court may issue writs even if there are other remedies available. They
are as follows:

1. When the remedies provided are not well suited to the situation at hand.
2. When the alternative remedy is inadequate to meet the needs of the case.
3. When there is an unreasonable amount of delay.
4. When there is complete lack of jurisdiction to try the case.
Jurisdiction of the High Court
The jurisdiction of the High Courts have also been provided in Article 226 of the
Constitution, and they can be divided into two part:

Territorial
The High Courts have the right to issue writs within the territory of the state which the High
Court is concerned with. Under Article 226(2) the court has been granted a certain degree of
extra-territorial jurisdiction as well. High Courts are allowed to issue writs to any
government, authority or person outside their territorial jurisdiction if the whole or part of the
cause of action arises in their concerned state.
Subject matter
High Courts have been granted a large ambit to exercise this power. A High Court can issue
writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights given in Part III of the Constitution
but also non-Fundamental Rights for which the Constitution of India has used the words “for
any other purpose” to widen the scope of High Court’s Jurisdiction.

Types of Writs
There are five types of writs which can be issued by the High Courts, but Article 226 has also
given the power to issue other writs if they are of like nature to the five types of writs
expressly spelled out in the Constitution. The types of writs are as follows:

Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus is a Latin term which translate to “you have the body.” This type of writ is
used in cases of illegal detainment and imprisonment. This writ allows the court to direct the
detainer to appear before the court and give a valid reason for the imprisonment or detention.
They must provide proof that it is legal, thus the onus of proof is on the detainer, and he must
show proof of authority to do the same. If the court finds that the person has been illegally
detained, it can order the detainee or prisoner to be set free.

Scope and Grounds

The court has greatly expanded the scope of this writ as it protects the right to life and liberty.
In the case of Sheela Bharse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378, the court expanded
the scope of this writ by adjudging that it is not necessary that the detainee should be the
petitioner. An interested party who has some connection with the case may also do so.

In the case of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate AIR 1973, SC 2684 the court held that it is
not necessary to produce before the court the detainee.

When can it be issued:

The writ of habeas corpus can be filed in the High Court when a person has been illegally
detained by any public authority. For example, if a person has been detained for an
unreasonable amount of time and without just cause, he may file a writ of habeas corpus.

Prohibition
The writ of prohibition is issued by the High Court to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies,
refraining the said bodies from continuing with any proceeding which is in excess of their
jurisdictions. The writ of prohibition can be issued only when the case is continuing.

Scope and Grounds

In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO AIR 1961 SC372, the Supreme Court held
that when a subordinate court or tribunal is shown decisively that they have acted in excess of
their jurisdiction, the court will issue a writ of prohibition regardless of whether there exists
an alternative remedy or not.

When can it be issued:

A writ of prohibition can be filed when a court acts not within the limits of their jurisdiction
but beyond its prescribed limitations. For example, if a trial is being heard without the court
having the jurisdiction to do so, a writ of prohibition may be filed.

Mandamus
Mandamus is a Latin term meaning “to command,” and it is a writ which is issued to any
person or authority who has been prescribed a duty by the law. Mandamus cannot be issued
to a private person or company with private obligations. It also cannot be issued to enforce a
private contract. This writ compels the authority to do this duty. Mandamus does not create a
new duty instead it compels the performance of an already existing duty.

Scope and Grounds

Like the other prerogative writs, the court has taken on the burden of setting the parameters
for the application of the writ of Mandamus.

In the case of, State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin(1998) 8 SCC 143, the Supreme Court held
the writ of mandamus is a personal action where the respondent has not done the duty they
were prescribed to do by law. The performance of the duty is the right of the applicant.

In  Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav
Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V. R. R Udani and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1607, the court held that it is
not necessary that the duty is imposed by statute, mandamus may apply even in cases where
the duty is imposed by common law or custom. The ambit of mandamus is very wide, and it
must be available when an injustice has occurred. It should not be bogged down with too
many technicalities.

When can it be issued:

The writ of Mandamus can be filed in when a person does not do the duty that they are
prescribed to do by a statute, common law or custom. For example, when police refuse to
take any action against a criminal, for no reason, a writ of mandamus may be filed.
Quo Warranto
Quo warranto is the Medieval Latin term for “by what warrant” and it is the writ which is
issued directing subordinate authorities to show under what authority they are holding the
office. The writ cannot be issued to a person working in a private field. This writ is issued to
a person in an office, the legality of which is being questioned.

Scope and Grounds

In the case of Anand Bihari v. Ram Sahay AIR 1952 MB 31, the court held that the office in
question must necessarily be one which is public.

In G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1966, SC 828, the court

held that a private person may file an application for a writ of Quo Warranto. It is not
required that this person is personally affected or interested in the case.

When can it be issued:

Writ of Quo Warranto can be applied for in situations where a person who has acquired a
public office does not have the right to do so. For example, the writ can be filed if the person
holding the post of Advocate General does not have a legitimate right to it.

Certiorari
Certiorari means “to certify,” and it is a writ which is issued by the High Court to subordinate
judicial or quasi-judicial bodies directing them to transfer the records of a particular case in
order to ascertain whether the court has the jurisdiction to give the order or whether it is
against the principles of natural justice. A writ of certiorari is corrective in nature.

Scope and Grounds

The scope of the writ of certiorari has been given in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
Ahmad Ishaque  AIR 1955 SC 233 as follows:

1. When there is an error of jurisdiction.

2. When the court has not given the proper time for both parties to be heard or has
violated principles of natural justice.
3. This writ is supervisory in nature, and thus the High court cannot review the
findings of the lower courts.
4. If the error is evident.

When can it be issued

Writ of certiorari can be applied in situations where a court, on passing an order, has gone
beyond their jurisdiction in doing so. For example, when the court passes an order for a case
which they had no power to do so, the aggrieved can apply for the writ of certiorari.
conclusion
The power to grant writs is one of the most important powers granted to the High Courts and
also the Supreme court. Writs protect the rights of the citizens by providing a faster remedy,
thereby upholding the principles of democracy by providing quick justice. The importance of
writs cannot be underestimated, and the courts must necessarily use this power judiciously as
they have been given a very wide ambit to practice this power.