INTRODUCTION

Introduction 

Jurisdiction in law plays a very pivotal role, it is the authority or power of a court to hear and determine cases. The Indian constitution has empowered the independence of judiciary and has pictured it out as supreme. Judicial review is part of the basic structure and is seen as the most powerful weapon of the judiciary, and the judicial review of administrative decisions is known as a writ jurisdiction. The judiciary is always on the lookout to ensure that all administrative actions are kept within the bounds of the law. The judiciary ensures and maintains faith in the Indian judicial and administrative systems and always sets out restrictions on policy actions that are arbitrary, unjust, or contrary to the public good, through writ jurisdiction. A writ is basically a formal written order issued by the court to ensure the legal or fundamental right of any individual.

Significance of Writ Jurisdiction 

Writs are often termed as the “Guarantor” or the “Defender” of fundamental rights. Our constitution enshrines certain fundamental or the most basic rights but, giving rights would not suffice until and unless those rights are enforced. There exists a mechanism for enforcement of the fundamental rights in case they are infringed. The right to constitutional remedies is also added as a fundamental right wherein, in accordance with Article 32 of the constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is also a part of the basic structure of the constitution as it ensures the rights of the people and Indian citizens , hence it can never be amended. This was held in the landmark judgment of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the power of the Supreme Court to issue writs to the citizens of India for the enforcement of their fundamental rights forms a part of the basic structure doctrine, and hence this power can never be amended or eliminated.” ,Dr. B. R. Ambedkar said that article 32 is the soul of the constitution and it is at the very heart of it.

The High Courts in India also have the power to issue writs. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution gives high courts the power and ability to enforce any of the basic fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India, or for any other reason. The scope and the ambit of the powers of the high courts under writ jurisdiction is wider than that of the Supreme court of the country. High courts are given this power to ensure that rule of law is upheld in the society.

Difference between the scope of writ jurisdiction of the High Court and The Supreme court.

The only courts with the authority to exercise writ jurisdiction are the Supreme Court and the High Courts. While Article 32 grants it to the Supreme Court, Article 226 grants it to the high courts.

Article 32 states that - The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

 The Supreme Court 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 conferred by this Part.”

Article 226 dealing with writ jurisdiction of high court states that: “Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose”

The basic difference between these two is the ambit and the scope for which these jurisdictions can be exercised by the hon’ble courts.

In the landmark judgment of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.  Union of India (1984), “it was held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32, as it gives the High Courts the power to issue orders, directions, and writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for the enforcement of legal rights that are granted to the disadvantaged by statute and are just as important as the fundamental rights.”

The High Court can issue a writ under two circumstances unlike the Supreme Court wherein writs are issued only when the fundamental right of an individual is violated. The high court issues writs when the fundamental right of an individual is infringed as well as when the legal right of any person is violated.

A writ petition, thus, can be filed by any person whose fundamental rights have been infringed by the State. Under a public interest litigation, any public-spirited person may file a writ petition in the interest of the general public even if his own fundamental right has not been infringed and can also plead in the higher court for the violation of any legal right ensured to him.

Difference between Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution.

The difference between Article 226 and Article 227 could be drawn after analyzing the judgment of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai. The most basic difference which can be thus drawn is Article 226 gives High Courts the ability to issue instructions, orders, and writs to any person or authority, including the government. On the other hand, Article 227 gives High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in the territory over which they have jurisdiction. Thus, under Article 226, the High Court has original jurisdiction, whereas under Article 227 the jurisdiction is purely supervisory.

Also, the authority given by Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised on a petition made by an aggrieved party or on behalf of the party aggrieved, whereas the supervisory jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 can also be exercised suo moto by the high court.

In Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, the hon’ble Supreme Court court took into consideration several previous decisions, one of them being Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors. Vs. Siva Ram Singh & Ors, wherein it was summed up that –

“The scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 is restricted. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors;

and that the power of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution;”

Various kinds of writs which can be issued by the High Court and the Apex Court.

There are 5 kinds of writs which can be issued by the Hon’ble High court and the Supreme court namely-

Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus is the Latin term which means ‘you must have the body’. It is the order issued by the court to present the detained person before the court and to check whether the arrest was lawful or not. A petition under this writ is made to release a person who is unlawfully detained or arrested, in other words habeas corpus can be summed up as a legal procedure which acts as a remedy for a illegally detained person.

Circumstances when this writ can be issued –

1. When an arrest is made without following the procedures of arrest under the law and the arrested person is not presented before the magistrate in the first 24 hours, the arrest is ultra vires to the statute.

2. If the person has done no unlawful act, still he or she is arrested.

3. If the person is arrested under a law which is unconstitutional.

So, it can be concluded that habeas corpus is issued for the enforcement of fundamental right ensured under Article 21, which is right to life, any person can file a petition, if his or her fundamental right is violated (In consideration with the fact that the person has done no wrong or the arrest is made in an unlawful manner). 

In Additional district magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla , also known as the habeas corpus case, the whole case spined around the situation when the emergency was proclaimed and the question was raised whether the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in this situation or not. It was held that as in the case of Liversidge v. Anderson during emergency all the rights were held suspended, the same was held in the instant case where a state has the power to restrain the rights especially right to life enshrined under article 21 of the Indian constitution in an emergency situation. This decision was considered to be the darkest day of Indian history.

Mandamus 

Mandamus is another important writ provided by the Indian constitution, mandamus in its literal sense means we command, mandamus is about issuing direction to any public authority for performing their respective legal duty. This writ can be issued against any public authority, any inferior court but it cannot be issued against any private individual or body.

Thus, it cannot be issued in cases which are private in nature or the question in consideration for direction is discretionary in nature rather than being mandatory, and a petition cannot be made for the performance of non- statutory function.

In All India Tea Trading Co. v. S.D.O. case, “the Land Acquisition Officer erroneously refused to pay the interest on compensation amount. A writ of mandamus was issued against the Land Acquisition Officer directing him to reconsider the application for the payment of interest.”

Quo Warranto

Quo Warranto means By What Warrant or By What Authority, through this writ the hon’ble court can call upon any individual holding a public office or authority and can ask by what authority they are holding that office.

This writ can be issued by the court only when it is assumed that a private person is holding a public office, whose work is of substantive public character, without the constitutional authority to hold the same.

In Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal,(2013), it was laid down “that quo warranto applies where an appointment is made which is “contrary to statutory provisions” and came up with a test to determine whether a person is eligible/qualified to hold office as per the stipulations of law. The key point is to see if the office holder has the qualifications to hold office as per law or not, with respect to statutory provisions.”

Certiorari

Certiorari means to certify, a petition under certiorari is made to ascertain the validity of a judgement passed by a lower court, under this if the hon’ble court is of the opinion that the lower court has acted beyond the its jurisdiction, or has made an error then it may pass an order to quash the lower courts judgement or may transfer the case to itself.

Circumstance in which this writ is issued –

1. When it is assumed that the lower court has acted without its jurisdiction.

2. Or when it is ascertained that the subordinate court has acted beyond or overstepped its jurisdiction.

3. Or when the lower court has acted against the rules and regulations or has acted against the basic principles of rule of law or natural justice.

In the landmark judgement of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills, 1958,

 The parameters for the exercise of the issuance of a writ of certiorari were affirmed by the Court in this case: “the Common Law writ, now called the order of certiorari, which was also adopted by our Constitution, is not meant to take the place of an appeal where the statute does not confer a right of appeal. Its purpose is only to determine, on an examination of the record, whether the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law which it was meant to administer. Mere formal or technical errors, even though of law, will not be sufficient to attract this extraordinary jurisdiction. Here, the court categorically says that ‘mere formal or technical errors’ will not constitute sufficient grounds for a writ of certiorari.”

Prohibition

Prohibition, as the name suggests is a writ issued to prohibit the subordinate courts or any other authority or tribunal from doing something which is be the authority or the power entrusted in them. This writ is issued as a preventive measure.

 In the landmark judgement of Prudential Capital Markets Ltd v. The State of A.P. and others, (2000), 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.”

Difference between Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Certiorari.

The basic difference between Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Certiorari is that, these two writs are issued at very different times,  writ of certiorari is issued once the case is decided and heard by any lower authority, once the case is ascertained by the subordinate authorities then under certiorari its validity is ascertained and considering the same either the writ is issued otherwise it is not, on the other hand writ of prohibition is issued for preventing the lower court or  authority from exceeding its jurisdiction while the proceedings in the lower court are still going on. Prohibition is preventive in nature while Certiorari is remedial in nature.

Conclusion

The Constitution of India has granted the power to issue writs to the supreme court and the high court under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution respectively, this power has been granted to ensure that the rules of natural justice are upheld.

There are five different sorts of Writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition. All of these Writs are efficient ways to uphold citizens' rights and ensure that the administrative officials carry out their legal obligations effectively.

Thus, all of these Writs have been crucial in upholding people's rights and expanding the reach of the Judicial Review in India.