UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY
CHANDIGARH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Topic: Scope of Writ Jurisdiction, Principles and

Grounds for exercise of Writ Jurisdiction

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Ms. Tania Singh Ravneet Kaur
Ms. Sulbha Setia B.Com LL.B (hons.)
332/19
Section-F
6th semester

Page 1 of 15
Acknowledgment

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Ms. Sulbha

ma’am and Tania ma’am who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful
project, I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.
I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to our director Prof.
Rajinder Kaur for giving me a golden opportunity to enhance my skills by the
completion of this project.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited time period.

Ravneet Kaur

Page 2 of 15
Contents

1. What is writ
2. Scope of Writ Jurisdiction
3. Principles for exercise of Writ Jurisdiction
4. Grounds for exercise of Writ Jurisdiction
5. Conclusion
6. References

Page 3 of 15
What is writ
A writ is a written official order issued by the court. The formal order may be in
form of warrant, direction, command, order etc. Writs can only be issued by the
High Court Under Article 226 of Indian Constitution,1950 and by The Supreme
Court under Article 32 of Indian Constitution,1950. Indian constitution has
adopted the concept of prerogative writs from English common law. Writs was
first used to describe a written command of the King.
Differentiating between writs and order it can be said that writs can be issued to
provide extraordinary remedy i.e. in cases where the aggrieved person is seeking
for an extraordinary remedy usually against an administrative action, whereas,
order can be passed in any matter. There are 5 different types of writ provided
under law. Hence, all the writs can be called as order but all order can’t be called
writs, because the ambit of order is larger than writs.
Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III of the Indian Constitution including
the right to equality, right to life and liberty etc. Merely providing for Fundamental
Rights is not sufficient. It is essential that these Fundamental Rights are protected
and enforced as well. To protect Fundamental Rights the Indian Constitution,
under Articles 32 and 226, provides the right to approach the Supreme Court or
High Court, respectively, to any person whose Fundamental Right has been
violated. At the same time, the two articles give the right to the highest courts of
the country to issue writs in order to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Articles 32 and 226 specifically provide for five kinds of writs. These writs are
issued in different circumstances and have different implications. They are:
1. Habeas Corpus – The Latin phrase ‘Habeas Corpus’ literally means “to have
a body of”. This writ is used to release a person who has been unlawfully
detained or imprisoned. By virtue of this writ, the Court directs the person so
detained to be brought before it to examine the legality of his detention. If
the Court concludes that the detention was unlawful, then it directs the
person to be released immediately. In Kanu Sanyal v. D.M.,1 Bhagwati, J.
Held that the production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully
detained is ancillary to the main purpose of the writ in securing the liberty of
the subject illegally detained. The most characteristic element of the writ is

1 AIR 1973 SC

Page 4 of 15
 its peremptoriness, that is, a speedy and effective remedy for having the
legality of detention of the person enquired and determined by the Court.

2. Certiorari - Certiorari is a Latin word which means “to certify”. Certiorari is

a curative writ. When the Court is of the opinion that a lower court or a
tribunal has passed an order which is beyond its powers or committed an
error of law then, through the writ of certiorari, it may transfer the case to
itself or quash the order passed by the lower court or tribunal.

3. Prohibition - A writ of prohibition is issued by a Court to prohibit the lower

courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities from doing something
beyond their authority. The writ of prohibition is designed to prevent the
excess of power by public authorities. Formerly, this writ was issued only to
judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. But now such a requirement is no longer
valid. With the expanding dimensions of natural justice, and the requirement
of fairness in administrative functions, the rigidity about prohibition has
been liberalized.

4. Mandamus – ‘Mandamus’ means ‘we command’. It is issued by the Court to

direct a public authority to perform the legal duties which it has not or
refused to perform. It can be issued by the Court against a public official,
public corporation, tribunal, inferior court or the government. It cannot be
issued against a private individual or body, the President or Governors of
States or against a working Chief Justices.
The purpose of mandamus is to keep the public authorities within the ambit
of their jurisdiction while exercising public functions. Mandamus can be
issued to any authority in respect of any kind of function, e.g. administrative,
legislative, quasi-judicial, and judicial.

5. Quo warranto - ‘Quo warranto’ means ‘what is your authority’. The writ of
quo warranto is a judicial order against an occupier or usurper of an
independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty to show ‘by
what authority’ he is in such office, franchise or liberty. If the answer of the
usurper is not to the satisfaction of Court, the writ of quo warranto can be
issued to oust him.
The writ of quo warranto is a mode of judicial control in the sense that the
proceedings review the actions of the administrative authority which

Page 5 of 15
 appointed the person. The writ is issued to the person ousting him from
holding a public post to which he has no right.

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction

Scope of Article 32
The scope of Article 32 is not wide enough as Article 226. Article 32 can be
invoked only to enforce fundamental rights under Part III. One cannot approach the
Supreme court for enforcement for other rights except fundamental rights. Power
to issue writs under Article 32 is mandatory for the Supreme court because Article
32 is itself a fundamental Right and Supreme Court is the protector of these
Fundamental Rights. The writs are strong instruments issued against the
government and government officials.

Scope of Article 226

The scope of Article 226 is much wide than Article 32. Article 226 not only gives
the power to issue direction, order or writs not enforce fundamental rights but also
for the enforcement of other rights too. Article 226 empowers High court to issue
directions, orders or writs to any person, authority, government, or public officials.
Article 226 also talks about the interim order for writs and also states the
mechanism of how interim order will be disposed of by the High Courts.

Scope of writ of Habeas Corpus

It can be issued by the SC/HCs against both private and public authorities. The
objective of the writ of habeas corpus is to provide for a speedy judicial review of
alleged unlawful restraint on liberty. It aims not at the punishment of the
wrongdoer but to resume the release of the retinue. The writ of habeas corpus
enables the immediate determination of the right of the appellant’s freedom. In the
writs of habeas corpus, the merits of the case or the moral justification for the

Page 6 of 15
imprisonment or detention are irrelevant. In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv kant Shukla2 ,
it was observed that “the writ of Habeas Corpus is a process for securing the liberty
of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate relief from unlawful or
unjustifiable detention whether in prison or private custody. If there is no legal
justification for that detention, then the party is ordered to be released.” Habeas
Corpus Writs can not be issued in the following situations-
• When detention is lawful
• When the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court
• Detention is by a competent court
• Detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Scope of writ of Certiorari

• Initially, Certiorari Writ was issued only against judicial and quasi judicial
authorities but later its scope was extended to include even administrative
authorities.
• Certiorari writ cannot be issued against legislative bodies private individuals
or bodies.

Scope of writ of Prohibition:

Prohibition writ can only be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
• Prohibition Writ can’t be issued against administrative authorities,
legislative bodies and private individuals or bodies.

Scope of writ of Mandamus:

Besides public officials, Mandamus can be issued against any public body, a
corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or government for the same purpose.
• Mandamus Writ can not be issued against Private individuals (unlike Habeas
Corpus).

2 AIR 1976 SC

Page 7 of 15
Scope of writ of Quo-Warranto
• The Writ of Quo-Warranto can be invoked only when the substantive public
office of a permanent character created by a statute or by the Constitution is
involved.
• The Writ of Quo-Warranto is not available against the private or ministerial
office.

Principles for exercise of Writ Jurisdiction

• Alternative remedy
As we have discussed above that Article 226 provides for a discretionary remedy
and high court has the power to refuse the grant of any writ if its is satisfied that
the aggrieved party have adequate alternative remedy. Remedies provided under
this article can’t be used as a substitute for other remedies. So, therefore it can be
said that a writ under Article 226 can’t be issued by the High Court in the case
where there exists an equal, efficient and adequate alternative remedy unless there
is any exceptional reason for dealing the matter under Article 226.
Where there is a right to appeal available before the person seeking writ
jurisdiction then in such cases High Court can refuse to exercise its writ
jurisdiction the ground of availability of efficient alternative remedy.

• Delay
Provision of Limitation Act does not apply to a petition under Article 226 neither
there is any specified limitation period for filing a writ petition in Indian
Constitution also or in any other law. Whereas, exorbitant delay in filing the
petition can be an appropriate ground for refusing to grant relief by The High
Court. And if the delay is explained properly to satisfy the court then it can’t be
refused by the court on that ground.
It was a well established principle that a writ of certiorari can’t be issued in case
there is negligence on the part of the applicant to assert his right.

Page 8 of 15
 • Suppression of facts
If the applicant while filing a writ under Article 226 is aggrieved of the
suppression of material facts in his application are tried to mislead the court, then
the court should thereby reject his application and such refusal be considered as a
refusal on merits. In the case of Hazari Lal Banna Mal v State of H.P.3, the
petitioner in this case has deliberately given misstatement of facts in his petition
application with an intention to mislead the court and on the same misstatement
obtained a rules of nisi prohibiting the state from taking certain actions.
Misstatement by the petitioner is itself a sufficient ground for refusing the writ
petition. Whereas, a mere mistake in the name of the parties by the person filing
the petition does not affect its maintainability.

• Joinder of parties
Writ under Article 226 ought not to be heard by the High Court if the person
getting affected by the decision of the High Court is not made a party to the case. It
was stated by the Supreme Court in case of Prabodh Verma vs State of U.P.4, that
In cases where the number of people affected by the decision is too big then those
should be represented by any such person who has the capacity to represent them
all.

• Dismissal of limine
If it is found by the High Court that the claims made in the petition are frivolous,
vexatious, reckless or Prima facie unjust, then the court may refuse to entertain
such claims on the ground of its being unlawful. Whereas, dismissal in limine
without a speaking order will not be considered as a proper dismissal. High Court
must have to pass a reasoned orders.

3 AIR 1953 HP 41
4 1985 AIR 167, 1985 SCR (1) 216

Page 9 of 15
 • Futile writ
If the applied writ is not serving any fruitful purpose then High Court in its
discretion reject the application of the person seeking the writ on the same ground.
In the case of Rashi bihari Panda vs State of Orissa5, the Supreme Court has
refused to issue the writ on the ground of futility and held that during the pendency
of the proceedings validity period of contract has expired.

Grounds for exercise of Writ Jurisdiction

▪ Habeas Corpus
Grounds for issue
The traditional function of the writ of habeas corpus has been to get the
release of a person wrongfully or unlawfully detained or arrested. The
Supreme Court has widened its scope by giving relief through the writ
against inhuman and cruel treatment meted out to prisoners in Jail. Thus, the
Court has allowed the use of the writ for protecting the various personal
liberties which are guaranteed to the arrested persons or prisoners under the
law and the Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India6 has electrified the whole concept of liberty by,
holding that “procedure established by law in Article 21 means “fair and
reasonable” procedure. Accordingly, a writ of habeas corpus would lie if the
law which deprives a person of his liberty is not fair and just.

▪ Certiorari
Grounds for issue
A writ of certiorari may be issued on any of the following grounds:
(1) Error of jurisdiction: Error of jurisdiction refers to such situations where
the authority acts in Absence or Excess of jurisdiction. In a case where
there is absence or total lack of jurisdiction, the writ of prohibition would
lie against a judicial or quasi-judicial authority prohibiting it from
exercising jurisdiction not vested in it. Thus, prohibition was issued in a
case of levy of license fee without authority of law. Similarly if a taxing

5 AIR 1968 Ori 182

6 1978 SC 597 19

Page 10 of 15
 authority seeks to impose tax on a commodity exempted from tax under
the Act, a writ of prohibition may lie.

(2) Abuse of Jurisdiction: Certiorari will be issued to quash an action where

the authority has abused its jurisdiction. An authority is said to have
abused its Jurisdiction when it exercises its powers for improper purpose,
or on extraneous considerations, or in bad faith, or leaves out relevant
considerations or does not exercise the power by itself but at the instance
or discretion of another person.

(3) Jurisdictional facts: Lack of jurisdiction may also arise from absence of
some preliminary facts which must exist before an authority exercise
jurisdiction, such facts are known as ‘jurisdictional’ or ‘collateral facts’.
In other words it can be said that fact or facts upon which an
administrative agency’s power to act depends is called a ‘jurisdictional
fact. If the jurisdictional facts do not exist, the authority cannot act.
Where the authority wrongly holds or assumes that the State of
jurisdictional facts exists, although actually it does not exist, such
assumption of jurisdiction is liable to be quashed by the writ of certiorari.
The case Nalini Ranjan v. Anand Shankar7 is a good illustration of the
lack of jurisdiction when an agency has committed an error on
jurisdictional facts. The question whether injury was war injury or not is
a fact on which the jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner to consider. The issue of the deceased workman under the
War Injuries Ordinance, 1941 depended. Therefore, as the Commissioner
was wrong in his finding that the injury was not a war injury, the High
Court issued certiorari to quash it.

(4) Error of law apparent on the face of the record: A decision of an authority
can be quashed by the writ of certiorari if there is error of law apparent
on the face of record. No error can be said to be an error on the face of
record if it is not self-evident and it requires an examination or argument
to establish it. Error of law shall include clear ignorance or disregard of
law, or a wrong proposition of law, or a clear inconsistency between the

7 AIR 1952 Cal. 112

Page 11 of 15
 facts and the law and the decided decision. It may also include cases of
abuse of jurisdiction, and a decision based on ‘no evidence'.

(5) Violation of the principles of natural justice: A writ of certiorari can be

issued when there is violation of the principles of natural justice. There is
a minimum standard of natural justice which must be complied with by
‘anyone who decides anything’.8
These principles include:
(i) Rule against bias: Bias may include:
(a) Personal bias
(b) Pecuniary bias
(c) Departmental bias
(d) Policy bias
(ii) Rule of audi alterem partem: This right to hearing may include:
(a) Notice
(b) Hearing (oral or fair)
(c) Cross examination
(d) Right to Counsel
(e) Institutional decision
(f) Reasoned decision

(6) Limits of certiorari – In Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P.,9 the supreme

court has held that a writ of certiorari can never be issued to call for the
record of papers and proceedings of an Act or ordinance.

▪ Prohibition
Grounds for issue
Essentially the writ of certiorari and prohibition can be issued when the
authority acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or acts contravention of
the principles of natural justice, or acts under a law which is ultra vires or
acts in violation of fundamental Rights.
(a) Absence or Excess of jurisdiction: In a case where there is absence or total
lack of jurisdiction, the writ of prohibition would lie against a judicial or

8 Board of Education v. Rice, (1911) AC 179.

9 AIR 1985 SC 167

Page 12 of 15
 quasi-judicial authority prohibiting it from exercising jurisdiction not vested
in it.
(b) Violation of the principles of natural justice: A writ of prohibition will also
be issued when there is violation of the principles of natural justice. As a
matter of fact, if the principles of natural justice have not been followed, that
is, if there is bias or prejudice on the part of the Judge or no notice is issued
or hearing given to the person against the action is proposed to be taken,
there is no jurisdiction vested in the judicial or quasi-judicial authority to
proceed to act.
(c) Unconstitutionality of a Statute: A writ of prohibition will lie if a judicial or
quasi-judicial authority proceeds to act under a law which is ultra vires or
unconstitutional.
(d) Infraction of Fundamental Rights: Prohibition can also lie where
fundamental Rights are violated.

▪ Mandamus
Grounds for issue-
Mandamus can be issued on all those grounds on which certiorari and
prohibition can be issued. Accordingly, the writ of mandamus can be issued
on the following grounds:
1. Error of jurisdiction;
o Lack of jurisdiction;
o Excess 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.
A writ of mandamus will not be issued against the President or the Governor of a
state for the exercise of powers and performance of duties.10 It will not lie against
the State legislature to prevent from considering enacting a law alleged to be
violative of Constitutional provisions. It will also not lie against an inferior or
ministerial officer who is bound to obey the orders of his superiors.

10 Article 361, Constitution of India.

Page 13 of 15
Conclusion
The Constitution is the law of the laws and nobody is supreme. Even the judges of
Supreme Court are not above law and they are bound by the decisions which are
the law of the land declared by them under the writ petitions. Thus, the
constitutional remedies provided under the constitution operate as a check and
keeps the administration of government within the bounds of law. In our country
the judiciary or law is supreme. Writ jurisdictions are judicial reviews of
administrative actions. Judiciaries always stand to ensure that all administrative
actions are confined to the limits of the law .Thus, the writ jurisdictions act as
judicial restraints of policy decisions which are unreasonable, unfair and against
public interest.

Page 14 of 15
References

Upadhyaya, JJR, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 11th

Edition (2019).
Jain, M.P. and Jain, S.N., Principles of Administrative Law, Wadhwa and Co., 8 th
Ed. (2010).
https://www.adda247.com/upsc-exam/type-of-writs-in-indian-constitution-and-
their-scope-article-32-and-article-226/
https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTU1Mw==/The-Significance-and-Scope-of-
Article-32-of-the-Indian-Constitution

Page 15 of 15