KARNAVATI UNIVERSITY UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-24

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts in India: A Study

of Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition, and Quo

Warranto

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Asst. Prof. Saumya Shukla Prithish Dekavadia

Unitedworld School of Law Semester 5

Karnavati University Section B

Gandhinagar 20210401047
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................3

INTRODUTION..........................................................................................................................................4

WHAT IS WRIT JURISDICTION?............................................................................................................5

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA.............................................................................................6

UNDERSTANDING ARTICLE 226..........................................................................................................7

SCOPE OF ARTICLE 226......................................................................................................................8

TYPES OF WRITS......................................................................................................................................8

Prohibition................................................................................................................................................8

Mandamus................................................................................................................................................9

Quo – Warranto......................................................................................................................................11

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................12

REFRENCES.............................................................................................................................................13
 ABSTRACT

An essential component of India's legal system is the writ jurisdictions, which offers a special

channel for the defence of basic rights and the application of the law. In depth analysis of the nature,

reach, and use of three important writs mandamus, prohibition, and quo warranto in the context of the

Indian legal system is provided in this paper. The High Courts and Supreme courts have the authority to

order public authorities or governmental agencies to carry out their mandated tasks through the writ of

Mandamus, sometimes referred to as the "command" writ. In order to clarify the circumstances in which

Mandamus can be used and the changing function it serves in maintaining administrative responsibility,

this study examines significant instances and legal doctrines. Another essential writ, prohibition, acts as

a deterrent by preventing subordinate courts or tribunals from going beyond their authority. This study

looks into cases where the High Courts have used Prohibition, highlighting how important it is to

upholding the rule of law and avoiding injustices. Quo Warranto is a writ intended to contest the

authority of public officials. This study clarifies the grounds for issuing a quo warranto by looking at

case laws, highlighting its function in preventing unauthorized possession of public offices.

In addition, this study discusses into the interactions among these writs, looking at situations in

which many writs are used simultaneously or in which selecting a particular writ is crucial to the success

of the requested remedy. To give a thorough grasp of the workings of writ jurisdiction, the Indian

judiciary's developing judicial interpretation and precedents in this area are critically examined.
 INTRODUTION

The Indian Constitution's Articles 32 and 226 provide for the enforcement of basic rights and the

judicial scrutiny of administrative acts through the use of writs. A person has the constitutional right to

raise a complaint or grievance against any administrative action to the court's attention. The phrase "ubi

jus ibi remedium" reflects the general importance of remedies - where there is a right, there is a remedy.

It goes without saying that a legally granted right is essentially useless without a workable remedy. The

process of seeking a remedy should be clear, easy to follow, and expeditious. The remedy itself should

also be appropriate in protecting the victim's legal rights against infringement and providing

compensation for such violation. In other words, remedies should be effective in both method and

effect1.

The Indian Constitution gives High Courts the authority to issue writs to authorities, directing

them to take or refrain from taking activities that are required by law and the Constitution. Even before

independence, several Indian High Courts had some limited writ jurisdiction; however, the true extent

and breadth of this power have only been fully explored by High Courts after the Indian Constitution,

which guarantees basic rights, came into effect. All Indian courts are obligated to provide appellate and

supervisory authority over district and subordinate courts within the regions they oversee. This means

that high courts may have the most extensive caseload of any court level. Research indicates that the

highest rates of case delays and backlogs occur in India's High Courts, and that this is mostly because to

a combination of a lack of human resources and an excessive caseload

1
David Stott & Alexandra Felix, “ Principles of Administrative Law”, Cavendish Publishing Limited, London &Sydney, (1997) 155
 WHAT IS WRIT JURISDICTION?

 A person whose rights have been violated by an arbitrary administrative action may seek

appropriate redress from the Court.

 The Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court and High Courts writ authority to enforce and

safeguard an individual's basic rights, respectively, in Articles 32 and 226.

 A Writ is a legal tool or order used by the Supreme Court or the High Courts to command a

person, official, or body to take a certain action or abstain from taking a certain action.

 High Courts may issue directives, orders, or writs in the form of quo warranto, certiorari,

mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus under Article 226.

 These directives, writs, or orders may be issued for any purpose, including the enforcement of

basic rights.

 It is generally known that the remedy specified in Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is a

discretionary one, and that the High Court may always decide not to give such relief under

specific conditions, even in cases when a legal right has been violated.

 L. Chandra Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors 2, the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental

framework of the Constitution includes the writ jurisdiction of both the high court and the

Supreme Court. Therefore, the Constitution could not be repealed or removed, even if it were

altered.

2
1995 AIR 1151, 1995 SCC (1) 400
 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

Administrative activities are subject to judicial scrutiny according to English Common Law. The

writ procedure has been used in England since the thirteenth century for purposes that are essentially the

same as those for which it is used now. The ruler, the source of justice, desired to be notified when a

subject complained of injustice, therefore he commanded that the record be forwarded to the King'

Bench. It evolved into a method of evaluating the recently acquired actions of the justice of peace in the

seventeenth century. This authority was eventually expanded to include the examination of all

administrative entities3.

In India, writs date back to the Regulating Act of 1773, which created a Supreme Court in

Calcutta by a charter in 1774. In 1801 and 1823, respectively, the Supreme Courts of Madras and

Bombay were created by a comparable charter that had identical stipulations. All three courts received

patent letters. Under the terms of the High Court’s Act, 1861, these courts were superseded by the High

Courts in 1862. After these courts took the position of the Supreme Courts, the newly constituted High

Court was granted all existing powers. As a result, the three High Courts of the president succeeded to

the Supreme Court's writ authority. Since they were freshly formed and could not inherit these powers

like the previous High Courts did, other High Courts that were later constituted were not endowed with

the same authority. The letters patent of the succeeding courts made no reference of the particular

jurisdiction granted to the three presidential High Courts under the charter. Section 45 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1877 granted these courts their initial civil jurisdiction, which was the extent of their writ

authority.

3
Indian Law Institute, “ Judicial Review through Writ Petition”, (1962) 3-4
 UNDERSTANDING ARTICLE 226

The Constitution's Chapter V contains Article 226. The High Courts are empowered to give

certain writs. Article 226 grants the High courts the discretionary authority to issue directives, orders,

and writs, including prohibition, quo warranto, mandamus, and habeas corpus writs certiorari as well.

Article 226 is used for both a breach of basic rights and for further rights.

According to Article 226(1), the High Court may, notwithstanding Article 32, give any person,

authority, government, or public official a directive, an order, or writs, including writs in the nature of

habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the purpose of enforcing

fundamental rights or any other rights that fall under its own local jurisdiction.

According to Article 226(2), a high court may give directions or orders to a government,

authority, or individual even though their place of residence, place of government, or place of authority

is not within its local jurisdiction, provided that the cause of action entirely or partially relates to the

high court's own jurisdiction.

According to Article 226(3), a high court may not issue an interim injunction, stay, or other

interim order against a party in connection with a petition under Article 226 unless (a) the party is

provided with a copy of the petition or copies of all interim order documents, and (b) the party is given

an opportunity to be heard.

According to Article 226(4), the authority granted to the high court to issue a directive, order, or

writ does not supersede the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Article 32(2).
 SCOPE OF ARTICLE 226

Compared to Article 32, Article 226's reach is substantially wider. In addition to providing the

authority to issue directives, orders, or writs to uphold basic rights, Article 226 also grants the authority

to uphold additional rights. The High Court is authorised under Article 226 to provide any person,

authority, government, or public official instructions, orders, or writs. Article 226 also discusses the

interim order for writs and outlines the process by which the High courts would decide on interim

orders.

TYPES OF WRITS

Prohibition
A writ of prohibition, often called a "stay order," is an official document that forbids or ceases

something4. It is by definition a preventative writ intended to enjoin or prevent an order against a

tribunal or court. In literal terms, it means to forbid the subordinate court or tribunal. The Superior Court

is ordering subordinate courts and tribunals to desist from what it is going to do. It keeps him from

taking authority over matters that are not his. "Inferior courts" refers to special tribunals, commissioners,

magistrates, and officials that have the authority to apply the law, impact a citizen's property or rights,

and operate in a manner that deviates from common law or in a more concise manner. The issue of

prohibition is done to protect the individual from the arbitrary power of the administrative bodies.

Grounds

Prohibition can be issued on the following grounds –

4
A.K.Moittra v. Defence Ministry, AIR 1956 All 312
 1) Lack or excess of Jurisdiction

2) Violation of the principles of natural justice

3) Infringement of fundamental rights

4) Fraud

5) Contravention of the law of the land

Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanamas v. Thallappaka Anantha Charyulu5, established that a writ of

prohibition is often issued when a subordinate court or tribunal

` (i) Moves to act outside of or beyond their jurisdiction

(ii) Proceeds to behave contrary to natural justice principles or

(iii) Goes on to act in accordance with a statute that is unlawful or extra vires,

(iv) Proceeds to act against the principles of justice

Mandamus
Literally meaning "command," the writ of Mandamus is considered one of the greatest remedies

available in the Indian legal system. It takes the form of explicit directives from the High Court or the

Supreme Court to a lower court, tribunal, board, company, or other administrative entity, or to an

individual, requiring the fulfilment of a certain legal obligation or responsibility related to the position

held by the individual.

The purpose of mandamus is to ensure that public officials remain within their jurisdictional

boundaries while performing their duties. It may be granted to any form of authority handling any kind

of function, including legislative, judicial, administrative, and quasi-judicial

Grounds

5
(2003) 8 SCC 134: AIR 2003 SC 3290,
 Grounds on which the writ of mandamus can be issued –

1) Error of jurisdiction- it includes excess of jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction.

2) Jurisdictional facts

3) Violation of the principles of natural justice

4) Error of law apparent on the face of record

5) Abuse of jurisdiction

When Mandamus is not allowed?

The Court may reject to grant the Writ of Mandamus in several instances as it is a discretionary

authority that cannot be enforced by the petitioner.

In the following situations, the Courts may decline to grant these Writs:

1) In cases when the petitioner's right has expired

2) In such a case, issuing the Writ would be pointless because the authority against

whom the Writ is requested has already performed the required action.

The Supreme Court ruled in State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin 6 that a writ of mandamus is a personal

action in cases when the respondent has not fulfilled their legal obligations. The applicant has the right

to fulfil the obligation.

Quo – Warranto
Quo warranto means to "what is your authority." It is an order from a judge against an individual

who holds a significant public post but lacks legal standing. Stated differently, the writ requires the

person holding a public office to demonstrate to the court what power he has to carry out the duties of

6
(1998) 8 SCC 143
the position. The process of reviewing the activities of the administrative entity that appointed the

individual is a very efficient means of judicial oversight. In terms of public office nominations, it

provides the judiciary with a powerful tool to influence the legislative, the executive branch, and both

statutory and non-statutory entities. On the other hand, it guards against depriving a citizen of a public

office to which he is legally entitled.

Even if they have no personal stake in the outcome or are not personally offended, anybody can

use the quo warranto remedy. He might not know you. In Satish Chander Sharma v. University of

Rajasthan7, it was decided that even if a registered university graduate was not a candidate or voter in

the election, he may nonetheless contest the election of that individual to the syndicate. The same goes

for those who wish to file a quo warranto motion with the High Court against an unauthorized chief

minister.

Conditions for issuing this wirt –

1) The position that the private individual mistakenly believed to be theirs is a public office.

2) The Constitution and other laws established the position.

3) The responsibilities that come with holding this position are of a public nature.

4) The office's tenure must be perpetual and unchangeable at the will of any individual or body

in charge.

5) The individual who is the target of the Writ is the one who really occupies and uses the

office.

CONCLUSION

7
AIR 1970 Raj 184
In conclusion, the High Courts' writ jurisdiction is one of the fundamental pillars of the Indian legal

system. It grants judges the power to issue writs such as mandamus, quo warranto, and prohibition in

order to uphold the legitimacy of those holding public office, protect fundamental rights, and fulfil legal

duties. Upholding the rule of law and justice in society depends on this jurisdiction. High Courts are

empowered to issue writs under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which serves as a powerful check

and balance against the misuse of power and the violation of rights.

One of the most important roles assigned to the High Courts is the power to issue writs. Writs uphold

democratic standards by expediting the administration of justice while protecting individual rights and

providing a speedier remedy. The importance of writs cannot be overstated, and because the courts have

been endowed with great authority, they must exercise that authority wisely.

All things considered, the writ jurisdiction of India's High Courts ensures the smooth operation of the

legal system and provides safety for the general public.

REFRENCES
1) Chakraborty, Archisman. “Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” Jus Corpus Law Journal,

vol. 2, 2021, p. 935,

Heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/juscrp2&div=637&id=&page=.

Accessed 24 Nov. 2023.

2) CLASS-B.A.LL.B VIIIth SEMESTER SUBJECT-ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PAPER CODE-801

TOPIC-WRITS Constitutional Philosophy of Writs.

3) Prakash , Bhaswat . Writ Petition under Indian Judiciary and the Ruling of Constitution. 15

June 2021.

4) Oza, Prachi. “Comparative Study on Writ Jurisdiction in India and the UK.” International

Journal of Law Management & Humanities, vol. 5 Issue 5, 2022, p. 839,

heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs19&div=71&id=&page=.

Accessed 23 Nov. 2023.

5) Thakur, Gopika. “Writ Jurisdiction: Scope and Limitations Faced by the Courts.” Indian

Journal of Law and Legal Research, vol. 2, 2021, p. 1, heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?

handle=hein.journals/injlolw2&div=297&id=&page=. Accessed 24 Nov. 2023.