Law of Writs Essay Example

Court and high courts the ability to grant writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.

The enforcement of the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution requires constitutional remedies. However, there is a slight distinction between two specific remedies. Article 32 focuses on enforcing fundamental rights, while Article 226 can be used for both fundamental rights and other purposes. These remedy provisions are crucial as they enable individuals to enforce their rights effectively. Thus, it is essential for a remedy to exist whenever there is a right.

Thus, it should satisfy the maxim, 'ubi jus ibi remedium'. Dr. Ambedkar, one of the principle makers of the Constitution, has given prime importance to Article 32 among all other articles from the Indian constitution. He has referred to it as "the very soul of the constitution and very heart of it". Devilal v. STO establishes that there can be no doubt regarding the significance of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens which are a significant feature of our constitution. The High Courts under Article 226 are bound to protect these fundamental rights. Daryao v. State of U.P.

The text emphasizes the significance of obtaining a writ, which allows individuals to present their case. It is both a right for individuals to approach the Supreme Court and a duty for the Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights. In India, there are five recognized categories of writ petitions: 1. Habeas corpus, 2. Mandamus, 3. Prohibition, 4. Certiorari, and 5. Quo warranto. The importance of habeas corpus lies in its literal meaning 'you may have the body' in Latin as it enables prompt determination of an appellant's

freedom rights.

The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to secure liberty for individuals who are illegally and unjustifiably detained. It provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal restraints. The writ can be filed by any person on behalf of the detained individual or by the detainee themselves. It is a judicial order issued by either the Supreme Court or High Court, allowing confined individuals to seek their release. In the case Icchu Devi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that strict adherence to burden of proof rules is not necessary in a habeas corpus case.

According to the case of A. D. M. Jabalpur v. Shivakant shukla, any post card from a pro bono publico is enough for the court to examine the legality of detention and determine if it is unlawful or unjust imprisonment, whether in prison or private custody. The writ of habeas corpus guarantees individuals' freedom by offering a quick way to address such situations. Through this writ, both the High Court and its judges have the power to summon a detained person and investigate the reasons for their confinement.

As per the decision in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, a person will be set free if there is no legal basis for their detainment. The Supreme Court has determined that it is not obligatory to physically produce the detained individual when filing a habeas corpus petition. If an arrested person isn't presented before a judge within 24 hours, their detention becomes unlawful and they possess the entitlement to secure release via a writ of habeas corpus. The term "mandamus" denotes "the order".

The writ of mandamus is a

court order that instructs a person or public authority, such as the government or public corporations, to carry out or abstain from carrying out a particular action connected to a public duty or sometimes a statutory duty. The Middletone case in 1573 is the first recorded instance of the writ of mandamus. To qualify for this order, the applicant must possess the entitlement to compel the authority to fulfill their responsibility. Additionally, the obligation being enforced must pertain to matters of public concern.

A private right cannot be enforced by the writ of mandamus. However, the writ of mandamus can be issued to a public authority to restrain it from acting under an unconstitutional law. Nevertheless, there are certain cases in which the writ of mandamus will not apply, such as when the duty is discretionary.

In addition, a private individual or any private organization cannot be subject to a writ of mandamus as they do not have a public duty entrusted to them. Furthermore, contractual obligations cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus.

The primary purpose of a writ of prohibition is to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from going beyond its jurisdiction or violating the principles of natural justice. This writ, issued by a higher court, serves as a means to ensure that inferior courts do not exert authority beyond their rightful power and requires them to operate within their specified boundaries. Therefore, this writ is utilized in instances where there is either an exceeding or lack of jurisdiction.

Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court, such as the Supreme Court and High Courts, to an inferior court or body engaged in judicial

or quasi-judicial functions. This writ aims to transfer a case from the inferior court or body to a higher court. It can be used both prior to the trial, to prevent jurisdictional abuse, and after the trial, to invalidate an order made without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice principles. The grounds for issuing this writ include instances of jurisdictional deficiency, procedural non-compliance, and errors of law apparent on the record (excluding errors of fact). However, it cannot be employed against a private entity.

On the other hand, "quo warranto" is a phrase that translates to "by what authority." This writ requires an officeholder to demonstrate to the court the source of their authority for holding said office.

The purpose of this document is to prevent unauthorized individuals from occupying public offices. If it is determined that the office holder lacks legal entitlement, the court has authority to order them to vacate their position. Any individual who can provide evidence to the court regarding an illegitimate occupant in a public office has the right to request a writ of quo warranto. In conclusion,

The unquestionable discretionary and boundless powers of writs jurisdiction for judicial review of administrative actions, as granted by the constitution, establish its supremacy as the highest law. Even judges of the Supreme Court are subject to this law and must adhere to their own decisions made under writ petitions, which become binding legal precedents. Hence, the Constitutional remedies specified in the Constitution serve as a necessary check, ensuring that government administration functions within lawful limits.