WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 226.

NAME- JIVITESH SISODIA.

ENROLLMENT NO.- A46011120038.
SUBJECT- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
COURSE- B.A. LLB (HONS.)
SEMESTER- 7TH .
SUBMITTED TO- PROF. SHIRISH KUMAR SHUKLA.
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

INTRODUCTION-
King Martin Luther as “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

That is, if an unlawful act or injustice is perpetrated somewhere in the globe, it will spread like a
virus and will not be accepted anywhere. As a result, every justice will be tainted, and everyone
else will wonder what it would take for the same wrong to be done to them. Furthermore, there is
a need to deliver justice to all while eliminating prejudice from the system. As a result, the
notion of writ was established into Common Law in order to keep a judicial check on
administrative operations.

In ancient times, this unique development of writ were done by Anglo-Saxon monarchy that
consist of brief administrative order, basically for land revenue purposes. During that time writs
were the documents issued by the King’s Chancellor against the landowner whose villeins
(feudal tenant) complained to the king about an injustice done with them. This document was
only issued after the summons from the sheriff to comply deemed fruitful.1

Fundamental rights are very important in our Constitution since they safeguard citizens' essential
civic liberties. However, it is vital to emphasize that if an aggrieved individual does not have a
mechanism to seek the court for infringement of his basic rights, these rights will lose all
importance. Keeping this in mind, our predecessors granted us the "right to constitutional
remedy" in Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. We can ask the court for the issuing of a
specific writ to defend our rights. We shall look at the meanings of Articles 32 and 226 in this
post. We will also go over the definition and types of writs that can be issued by our court.

WRIT-
The literal meaning of the term “writ” is a legal document that is issued by the court which
orders a person or entity to perform a specific act or to forbid him from performing a specific
action. All the orders, warrants, directions, summons etc. are the instruments of issuing a writ.

The concept of the writ was adopted from the British constitution. It was simply a written order
made by the English Monarch to a specified person to undertake a specified action. The Writs
are given under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution of India. DR. B.R Ambedkar called Article
32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution i.e. Right to Constitutional remedies as ‘the central core of
the Constitution’.

The Writs under the constitution of India ensures that our rights remain protected. It is because
there will be no authority of rights if there will be no remedy that can be used at the time of their
violation.

1
John Baker, Introduction to English Legal History, 60-77, (5th edn, 2019).

2|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

Dr B R Ambedkar regarded Article 32 as ‘the Right to Constitutional remedies as ‘the heart and
soul of the Constitution’’ and the “most important article of the constitution without which the
Constitution would be a nullity”.

WRIT UNDER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA-

In India, an individual whose fundamental rights are violated through administrative or judicial
authorities can approach the court for the remedy. It is also important to note that even a foreign
individual can also approach the court for enforcement of certain fundamental rights enjoyed by
them like Articles 14, 21, 25, etc.

In recent times, the Supreme Court has introduced a concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
wherein a public-spirited citizen can also approach the court on behalf of poor and aggrieved
people. The rule of locus standi is relaxed to ensure that justice shall also be reached the
marginal section of the society.

❖ ARTICLE-32:

Article 32(1) – “The right to move the Supreme Court by proper procedures for the authorization
of the rights gave by this Part is ensured.”

Article 32(2)– “The Supreme Court of India will have the capacity to give headings or requests
or writs, remembering writs for the idea of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo
Warranto, and Certiorari, whichever might be fitting, for the implementation of any of the rights
gave by this Part.”

This article makes the Supreme Court both the guarantor and defender of our Fundamental
Rights. However, this right can only be exercised for violation of our fundamental rights as
mentioned under Article 12 to 35 in our Constitution. As per this Article, the President can
suspend the right to approach the court for the enforcement of our fundamental rights.

Hence, the SC shall have the power to issues directions, or orders, or writs like Habeas
corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari.

❖ ARTICLE- 226:

It enables the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and also
other ordinary legal rights. The scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction is much wider than that of
the Supreme Court. Under Article 32, we can approach the Supreme court for the enforcement of
our fundamental rights but under Article 226, we can approach the court for the enforcement of
both the fundamental and the constitutional rights.

3|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

Constitutional Rights refer to those rights which are conferred to all the citizens and are
enshrined in the Indian Constitution but they are not mentioned under Part III of our
Constitution.

TYPE OF WRTIS:
Writs are a quick remedy against injustice. It was originated in Britain, where King’s or Queen’s
gave prerogative writs to judicial tribunals or other bodies to do something.

Five kinds of writs:-

• Habeas corpus.

• Certiorari.

• Mandamus.

• Quo Warranto.

• Prohibition.

❖ Writ of Habeas corpus: (To have the body).

1. Meaning:
It is in the nature of a call to the detaining authority to produce the detinue before the court, in
order to let the court know on what grounds the detinue has been detained. If there are no legal
grounds for detention the detinue should be released. The writ may be addressed to any body or
authority who has detained. The origin is in Magna Carta 1215.

It is a great constitutional right and the first security of civil liberty.

According to Blackstone, the writ provides for a swift & imperative remedy in all cases of
illegal restraint or confinement. The earliest instance was in First Edward's period in England.

2. Jurisdiction:

The supreme court under Art. 32 is empowered to issue the writ of Habeas corps for enforcement
of Fundamental Right: (Eg: Art. 21 & 22). The High courts are empowered to, issue the writ for

4|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

the enforcement of fundamental right and any other right. Any person who has been detained
or his next friend may move the writ of Habeas corpus. The burden is on the detinue to prove
that the detention is without legal authority or with mala fides or in excess of authority.

3. Grounds:

The burden is on the detinue to prove that the detention is:

a. Without legal authority or

b. With mala fides or

c. In excess of authority.

d. Grounds are vague, irrelevant etc.

4. Petition:

The writ petition to the High court or Supreme Court for habeas corpus should be accompanied
by an affidavit stating the facts & circumstances. If the Divisional Bench is satisfied that there is
a prima facie case for granting the prayer of release, it issues a rule nisi to the state (Detaining
authority). It may grant interim "bail" to the detinue.

On hearing the parties, if the court is of the opinion that the detention is not justified, it issues
orders to release the petitioner forthwith. (But, if it is justified, it discharges the rule nisi).

5. Emergency & Habeas Corpus:

In Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab2, it was held that if a person is detained under Defense of
India Act, he could not be released for violation of Fundamental Rights.

However if the order was with mala fides or invalid he could be released under Arts 21 & 22 of
the constitution. However, in A.D. M. Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla3. (Habeas corpus case) The
Supreme Court, held that during the emergency the Fundamental Rights were suspended, and
hence the remedy i.e., habeas corpus was not available. Detinue has no locus standi it held. This
was an unfortunate decision. Khanna J. wrote a powerful dissentient

2
1964 AIR 381, 1964 SCR (4) 797.
3
1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172.

5|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

6. 44th Amendment:

According to the 44th Amendment, even during the National Emergency, Arts. 21 & 22 cannot
be suspended. Hence this supersedes the Habeas corpus case. The position now compares well
with England, where even during I & II World Wars, Habeas corpus was not suspended.
(Liversidge v. Anderson4).

7. Leading Cases:

I. A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras5-

In the instant case, the preventive detention act was examined based on its constitutional
validity. If a legislature restraints a person from his personal liberty should be competent
enough to make such law in the first place. Detention is turned out to be unlawful if the
law backing it up is unlawful. A person has the right to approach the court. A person can
file an appeal in the supreme court against the order of high court in case of accepting or
refusing the application for the writ of habeas corpus.
II. Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling & Ors.6-
In the instant case, it was held that instead of following the traditional method of
producing the body before the court there must be complete focus on the legality of the
detention by looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. This case majorly
focused on the nature and scope of the case and stated that this writ is a procedural writ
and not a substantive writ.
III. Nilabati Behra v. The State of Orissa7-
In the instant case, the son of the petitioner was taken away by the Orissa police for the
purpose of interrogation. All the efforts made in order to trace him turned out to be futile.
So the writ petition of habeas corpus was filed in the court. During the pendency of the
petition, the dead body of the petitioner’s son was found on the railway track. The
petitioner was awarded compensation for Rs. 1,50,000.
IV. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration8-
In the instant case, it was held by the court that the writ petition of habeas corpus can be
filed in the court that not only for the wrongful or illegal confinement of the prisoner but
also for his protection from any kind of ill-treatment and discrimination by the authority
responsible for his detention. Thus the petition can be filed for the unlawful detention and
checks the manner in which the detention was caused.

4
Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206.
5
1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88.
6
1974 AIR 510.
7
1993 AIR 1960, 1993 SCR (2) 581.
8
1980 AIR 1579.

6|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

❖ Writ of Certiorari:

Certiorari means 'to certify' It was a High prerogative writ issued by the superior courts
to the interior courts in England. Later these were extended to Tribunals and other
executive authorities who exercised quasi-judicial functions.

In India only the Supreme Court & the High courts are invested with the writ jurisdiction
under Art. 32 & Art. 226 of the constitution respectively.

The object of the writ of certiorari is to see that the inferior authorities properly exercise
their jurisdiction. The courts will interfere to quash, a quasi-judicial order which is either
without jurisdiction or against the principles of Natural justice.

(The writ of prohibition is issued if the case in 'pending' in the lower court or tribunal) If
the case has already been decided, certiorari may be issued to quash the decision of the
lower court or tribunal.

1. Conditions:

i) The Lower court or tribunal or authority must be under a duty to act judicially such an
act must affect the rights of the individuals.
ii) There must be want of or excess of jurisdiction (Error of Jurisdiction)
iii) Contravention of the principles of Natural justice,
iv) To correct an error apparent on the face of the record.

2. Leading cases:

Province of Bombay v. Kushaldas Advani.9

The Govt. of Bombay requisitioned the house of K, a tenant. & alloted it to A, under
Bombay Land Acquisition Act. K applied for certiorari The supreme court held that if the
certiorari is to be issued, the lower authority must be exercising quasi judicial functions.
The Act had not provided for such an authority.

This decision is no longer a good law as in the State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei and
Ors.10 , the Supreme Court has held, a duty to act judicially is implied when the act as

9
1950 AIR 222, 1950 SCR 621.
10
1967 AIR 1269, 1967 SCR (2) 625.

7|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

affecting the rights of persons, and hence if the Act is silent, the court will read into it fair
procedure of Natural Justice in such cases.

ii) Jurisdiction:

RV Minister of Transport11. The minister passed an order revoking a licence though he

had no such power under the Act. Certiorari was issued.

iii) Natural justice:

1 Local Govt. Board Vs Arlidge12:

The Housing & Town planning Act 1909, had authorised to issue an order to close a
dwelling house if it appeared to them to be unfit for human habitation. There was an
enquiry, its report was not given to A, there was no oral hearing, A was given an order.
He appealed to the Courts, Held, that there was no violation of Natural justice merely
because there was no oral hearing or the enquiry authority report was not disclosed to A.

2. Ridge Vs Baldwin13:

A chief constable was tried in a case of conspiracy to obstruct justice but was acquitted.
The court made some remarks against him in the judgement. On the basis of this the
department took action and dismissed him from service. No enquiry was conducted.
Held, the order was ultra vires.

3. Gallapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportcorporation

And Another14:
Certiorari was issued. The secretary to the Govt was biased and the hearing of the
objections by him for nationalization of bus routes was violative of the principles of
Natural justice.

iv) Error apparent on the face of the record:

1. Rex Vs Northemberland Compensation15:

A was working in a Hospital. The National Health service Act was passed & under it he
lost his job. Under the Act, he was entitled to claim compensation on the basis of his total

11
[1990] 2 Lloyds Rep 351, [1990] 3 CMLR 1, C-213/89 (Factortame No.1).
12
[1914] UKHL J0720-1.
13
[1964] AC 40, [1963] UKHL 2.
14
1959 AIR 308, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 319.
15
[1951] EWCA Civ J1219-4.

8|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

service including his previous service under District council. The tribunal computed
compensation on the basis of his service in the Hospital, but it ignored his claim for
service under District council. Held, this was an error of the tribunal on the face of the
record. The court issued a certiorari.

2. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Ors. 16:

The Election Tribunal decided an election petition ignoring one of the election rules. The
consequence was that even those votes which were invalid were counted as valid. The
supreme court this was an error on the face of the record. Certiorari was issued to quash
the decision.

❖ Writ of Mandamus:

Meaning:

Literally it means "We Command", it originated in England. It is a peremptory order

issued by the High Court or Supreme Court in India. It demands masterly activity on the
authority or body or person to whom it is addressed. It commands him to perform some
public legal duty when the doing of a duty had been willfully refused When the
performance cannot be enforced by any other means, the writ of mandamus may be
sought after, as a Judicial remedy, as it is effectual convenient and beneficial.

It is available in all cases, where there is a specific right but not a specific legal remedy. It
is the right arm of the Court. Magna Carta (1215) stated: Crown was bound neither to
deny Justice to anybody, not to deny anybody right to Justice. Middleton's case of 1573
is the first reported case in England.

The objective is that Justice may be done i.e., to remedy defects of Justice, or, failure of
Justice. Hence an extraordinary remedy. It is a popular remedy as well.

1. To whom Issued:

It is issued to: President of India, Courts Tribunals, Speaker of the House. Govt-(State or
central), local Authorities, municipalities, City corporations, Panchayats, Universities,
Taxing or Election Authorities, Public officials, other authorities (Art. 12) Also to UPSC,
Chief Justice, passport, or Revenue Authorities etc.

Exception: It is not issued to private parties.

16
1955 AIR 233, 1955 SCR (1)1104.

9|Page
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

2. Conditions:-

To issue a mandamus, the Supreme Court or the High Court should be satisfied, that:
a) The Petitioner has a specific legal right.
b) The Respondent State or Authority has a legal duty.
c) Writ is made in good faith.
d) The respondent has refused relief (i.e. there should demand & refusal.)
e) There is no other efficacious, alternate relief.

3. Grounds for issue:

a) Protection of fundamental rights.
b) To compel a court to exercise its Jurisdiction.
c) To direct a public official or Authority or Government, not to act if the law
declared by the court is ultra vires.
d) Issued against abuse of power, malafide exercise of power, non-application of
mind or exercise of power, violating principles of natural Justice.
e) To compel Government or public officials to perform duty imposed by a statute.

4. Leading Cases:

a) Sohanlal v. Union of India17, the Supreme Court stated that the Writ of
Mandamus will only lie against a private individual if it is proven that he is
integrated with a public authority.
b) Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board18, it was held that even when there are
alternative remedies available in cases of violation of fundamental rights, seeking
the issuing of writs cannot be absolutely restricted.
c) Sharif Ahmad v. HTA.19, Meerut, when the respondent did not obey the orders
of the tribunal, the petitioner approached the supreme court for the enforcement of
the orders of the tribunal. The Supreme Court issued a Mandamus ordering the
respondent to abide by the orders of the tribunal.
d) SP Gupta v. Union of India20, the judges ruled that the president of India cannot
have a writ issued against him, that directs him to fix the number of judges of the
High Court and fill vacancies. The courts cannot issue a writ of Mandamus
against persons like the president and governors.

17
1957 AIR 529, 1957 SCR 738.
18
1950 AIR 163, 1950 SCR 566.
19
1978 AIR 47, 1978 SCR (1) 749.
20
AIR 1982 SC 149.

10 | P a g e
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

e) C.G. Govindan v. the State of Gujarat21, the Court refused to issue a writ of
Mandamus against the governor to approve the salaries of court staff fixed by
Chief Justice of High Court under Article 229. It was ruled that a writ of
Mandamus cannot be issued against a governor.

❖ Writ of Quo Warranto:

Meaning:

Means “By What Arthority?” this writ was issued in England to privilege belonging to
the state. The object was to enquire by what persons who usurped or claimed any office,
franchise liberty or authority such a claim is made.

The court enquires:

"On what authority you are holding this office?

It decides who had the right to the office etc.. If the answer is not satisfactory the court
will out the usurper by issuing this writ:

1. Conditions:

i) The office must be statutory or constitutional.

ii) It must be a substantive one.
iii) It should be a public office.
iv) The holder should be the occupier and user of the office.

The basis of the writ is to see that by an unlawful claim, a person does not usurp a public
office. The writ is discretionary, and, the court may refuse to issue if there is an
alternative remedy. This writ is a very powerful instrument against usurption of public
office.

2. Statutory offices: The examples are:

Prime minister (U. N. Rao V. Indira Gandhi22). Chief Minister. Advocate General
Speaker of the House, M.P., M.I..A., Mayor of corporation, - Chief Justice (Lokhpal V
Ray23) etc.

21
Spl. C.A. No. 3356/1980.
22
1971 AIR 1002, 1971 SCR 46.
23
ILR 1974 Delhi 253.

11 | P a g e
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

3. Who can move?

The affected officer, or any person, with bonafide intention in public interest may
challenge. He need not be an aspirant for the office.

Cases:

a) Advocates may question the appointment of an Advocate General.

b) Bar Council members may question the appointment of chief justice.
c) Kodanda Raman's case: He questioned the validity of the Shah commission.
d) B. Archana Reddy V. St. of A.P24.: Osmania University Vice- Chancellor was
terminated by amending the University Act by reducing from 5 years tenure to 3
years Held, the amended law was not applicable to him, but to the new
incumbent. Quo warranto was issued.
e) The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr 25:
Govinda Rao who was a reader in English petitioned for a Quo warranto writ
against Sri Anniah Gowda. The supreme court held that as per law the University
could prescribe the qualifications, and these were fulfilled by sri Anniah Gowda
Hence, quo warranto was not issued against the University.

4. De facto doctrine:

This means it is the dejure officer who should exercises his powers and issues orders.
But, when a defacto officer exercise his powers, before he is ousted by the court under a
quo warranto, his actions, decisions or exercise of power would be considered as valid on
grounds of policy and necessity.

G. Rangraju v. State of A.p26. , the supreme court quashed the appointment of a session
judge but he had disposed of a number of cases as defacto sessions judge. Held, his
decisions were valid.

❖ Writ of Prohibition:

It is a judicial writ, (an order), issued by the Superior court to the inferior court,
preventing it from exercising a jurisdiction which is not legally vestal in it: or which it is
continuing its proceedings against the law of the land- ‘Halsbury’.

24
2005 (6) ALD 582, 2005 (6) ALT 364.
25
1965 AIR 491, 1964 SCR (4) 576.
26
Appeal Criminal 234 of 1976.

12 | P a g e
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

The object of the writ is prevention i.e. prevention is better than cure. It restrains the
lower court, tribunal or Authority from proceeding further in excess of its jurisdiction. It
brings masterly inactivity, to it. It shall close the case forthwith.

1. Grounds:

In India, the Supreme Court (Art. 32) the High Court (Art. 226) are empowered to issue
the writ of prohibition to the Lower court, Tribunal or Authority, if a proceeds to act:-

(i) Without or in excess of jurisdiction.

(ii) In violation of the principles of Natural justice.
(iii) Under a law which is itself ultra vires.
(iv) In violation of Fundamental Rights.

2. Leading Cases:

i. Brij Khandelwal v. Union of India27- The Delhi High Court refused to issue a
prohibition against the Central Government from engaging in a boundary dispute
agreement with Sri Lanka. The judgment was founded on the basis that there is no
bar against the government performing executive or administrative duties. With
the idea of natural justice and the growth of the concept of fairness, there is no
longer a tolerable view, even in administrative tasks. The stiffness about certiorari
or prohibition writ has also been softened. If any of the grounds on which the writ
of prohibition is issued is present, the writ can now be issued to anybody,
regardless of the nature of the duty fulfilled by it. Prohibition is currently
considered as a broad remedy for judicial control of impacting quasi-judicial as
well as administrative actions.

ii. S. Govind Menon v. Union of India28- A writ of prohibition can be issued in

both circumstances of excess jurisdiction and absence of jurisdiction. Writ of
prohibition was issued by a higher court, namely the Kerala High Court, to a
lower court in order to take over jurisdiction that was not initially vested, or in
other words, to compel lower courts to retain their jurisdictional limitations. The
writ can be issued when there is an excess of jurisdiction as well as when there is
an absence of jurisdiction.

27
AIR 1975 Delhi 184, ILR 1975 Delhi 501.
28
1967 AIR 1274, 1967 SCR (2) 566.

13 | P a g e
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

iii. Hari Vishnu v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque 29- The case dealt with distinctions
between writs of prohibition and certiorari. The verdict, in this case, distinguished
between certiorari and prohibition writs and said that when the lower court issues
a decision, the petitioner must file a certiorari petition since prohibition writs can
only be submitted when judgment has not yet been given.

iv. Prudential Capital Markets Ltd v. The State of A.P. and others 30,In this case,
it was questionable whether the prohibition writ could be issued against
the district forum/state commission which had already passed judgments in the
depositors’ consumer cases. The Court held that after the execution of the order,
the writ of prohibition cannot be issued, the judgment can neither be prevented
nor stopped.

3. Limits:

i) It is not issued to purely administrative acts of the executive.

ii) Mere errors or irregularties are not the grounds for writ of prohibition when the lower
court or tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction.
iii) It is issued only if the proceedings are pending in the lower court, tribunal or
authority.

❖ Difference between Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme

Court

Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme

Writ Jurisdiction of High Court
Court

Given under Article 32 of Indian

Given under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.
Constitution.

Power to issue writ is specific to only

Wider power to deal with the issues of writ petition
one subject matter

Exercise its writ jurisdiction for Exercise its writ jurisdiction for enforcement of
enforcement of fundamental rights fundamental rights and other constitution and legal right

29
1955 AIR 233, 1955 SCR (1)1104.
30
2000 (5) ALD 418, 2000 (5) ALT 468, 2002 108 CompCas 441 AP.

14 | P a g e
 WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 32&226

only also

Writs have validity only in the territory under the

Territorial jurisdiction is applicable
authority of the High Court or where the cause of action
throughout the country
has arisen.

CONCLUSION-
The first and foremost goal of the Preamble of the Constitution is to secure social, economic and
political justice to all its citizens. Preamble of the constitution. It is the guiding principle of the
nation as it sets out the main aims which legislature intended to achieve. The social changes
which were contemplated by the makers of the Constitution, in the Constitution was sought to be
achieved through the exercise of fundamental rights by the individuals and by following the
direction of the policy by the state towards the goals set up in the Chapter IV of the Constitution
i.e. specifies directive principles of state policy.

For effective working of these principles and goals in real life and to prevent misuse of these
rights and liberties the judiciary was constituted in the Constitution. It is a trite saying and a latin
maxim ubi jus ibi remedium which means that wherever there is wrong committed law provides
remedy for the same. Therefore, judiciary was constituted to satisfy this principle well and when
a remedy is given for infringement of any right then that will make the right more effective.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court and the High Court have admitted the letters, postcards,
telegrams, and even newspaper items as writ petitions under Article 32 and 226 respectively of
Indian Constitution. These petitions provide extraordinary judicial relief to the person whose
rights are being infringed by any judicial or quasi- judicial order. PIL has an important role to
play in the justice system; it affords a ladder to justice to the disadvantaged sections of the
society, some of which might not even be well-informed about their rights.

Constitution law itself states that law is a supreme body and no one can be above the law. Even
the judges of the Supreme Court are bound by the decision given by them in accordance with the
law. And the constitution remedies provided under the law acts as a check and balance for the
whole system. Thus, the writ jurisdictions act as judicial restraints of policy decisions which are
unreasonable, unfair and against the public interest.

Power to issue writ, though is discretionary yet unbounded in its limits and such discretion can
be exercised only on sound legal principles. Absence of arbitrary power is the first essential for
the principle of rule of law upon which the whole constitutional system is based.

15 | P a g e