|Article 32 & Article 226
mentioned in Part 3 & 4 empowers the courts to issue the writs for the
sake of protection of Indian citizens' rights and freedoms.
||Guarantee to remedy
||Power of supreme
||court to issue writs
||Power of parliament�
||to confer the power to issue
writs to other Courts
||Suspension of Fundamental Rights
||Power of High Courts
||to issue any person or authority,
including inappropriate case any Government,�directions, orders
or�writs, for the enforcement of any of�the rights conferred by Part III
and for �any�other purpose.�
Art.32 is itself a fundamental right while Art.226 a constitutional right.
Both the articles authorizes the citizens the right to move Supreme Court as per
Art.32 & High Court as per Art.226.
In case of the denial of fundamental rights conferred in Part III of
Indian Constitution and for any other purposes such as Interim Order, decisions
against the tribunals, etc.
Judicial review under Art. 32 & Art.226 is a basic feature of Indian
Constitution beyond the pale of amenability; Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu,
1993 SC 412 : (1992) Supp 2 SCC 651
Dr. Ambedkar also called Art.32 as "Heart & Soul of Indian Constitution"
Supreme Court is said to be "The Protector & Guarantor of Fundamental
Types of Writs:
The five types of Writs:
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs J. Jayalalitha And Ors.
Habeas Corpus:If the Judiciary wants to prevent a person from illegal
detention or the detained person who had already completed a period of
detention but still kept imprisoned, in both these circumstances, Supreme
Court or High Court releases that detained person with immediate effect, if
there is absense of reasonable
justification in the detention.
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 Rudul Sah was illegally detained
for 14 years. PIL was filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 as his rights
Mandamus: Mandamus is a command issued by a court to restrain public
officer to perform his duty if he acted against the law or took unlawful
advantage of his powers.
The function of mandamus is to keep the public authorities within the limits of
their jurisdiction while exercising public functions.
Hemendra Nath Pathak v. Gauhati University. The University neglected the marks
obtained by a student in which he was passed. The petition had passed where
Mandamus was issued to direct the University to declare his pass marks required
by the rules of University.
Certiorari: By this writ, Supreme Court or High Court issues a writ to any
inferior courts or tribunals or quasi judicial body in order to quash their
judgements in a particular case. They even command these courts to submit their
judicial review and if those judgements found to be violative or illegal, then
the higher courts can stop the judgement from coming into effect.
Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam
& Ors., (1958) SCR 1240, in order to review the parameters of judgements.
Prohibition: Through this writ issued by higher courts, they can
prohibit the lower courts to pronounce any judgement or come to the verdict in a particular case if they act in
violation of rules of natural justice or violates fundamental rights or
prejudice is itself unconstitutional.
East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v Collector of Customs. Supreme Court observed
that writ of prohibition is an order issued to direct inferior courts or
tribunals to stop proceedings therein on the grounds that the proceedings are
going with excessive or lack of jurisdiction.
Quo Warranto This writ issues by higher courts to ask an officer or body or
authority that on which grounds he holds his office or whether the office he is
holding is created by a statue or not. Later, if the officer's title found to be
wrongfully gained or defective, his office will be quashed and he would be bound
to vacate the same immediately.
Subramanian Swamy petition against Jayalalitha in 2001. Two PIL's against her
Written By: Madhu Modi
(Pursuing law at Mkes Law