Writs in the Indian Constitution

In this case no question of jurisdiction of the High Court was raised it was just a matter of discretion of High Court to exercise its power given under Article 226. In Montagu’s words, prerogative writs were the one which concerns about the king’s justice to be administered to his subjects and the king must have an account of all his subjects those were imprisoned. Habeas corpus was considered as the most beneficent remedy it value was enhanced during the 17th century as during that time struggle for the constitution was going on. Writ of Mandamus that appeared in earlier law books was not concerned about private grievances at all.

Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India (

Generally, the person who has illegally detained file a writ petition of habeas corpus but when such person is unable to do the same, a family member, relative or friend can file a writ petition. Through this writ, the Court calls upon a person holding a public office to show under what authority he holds that office. If it is found that the person is not entitled to hold that office, he may be ousted from it. Its objective is to prevent a person from holding an office he is not entitled to, therefore preventing usurpation of any public office. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980 AIR 1579) case, an application was made to the Supreme Court through a letter written by a co-convict on the maltreatment of the prisoners. This letter was taken up by the Supreme Court and it issued the writ of habeas corpus stating that this writ can not only be used against illegal arrest of the prisoner but also for his protection against any maltreatment or inhuman behaviour by the detaining authorities.

The trial court deferred the ruling on the motion until the second day of trial, and then ruled the doctor would not be permitted to testify as an expert. In the personal-injury case of Fantica v. Superior Court (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 350, plaintiff’s treating doctor, who was to be called as the only expert physician, admitted during his deposition that he had not yet reviewed any of the plaintiff’s records of prior medical treatment. The defense did not stop the deposition or seek the court’s assistance, but instead continued with and completed the deposition. In Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 687, the trial court ordered a hospital to answer interrogatories and provide documents that were part of the hospital’s Peer Review Board proceedings and exempt from discovery pursuant to Evidence Code section 1157. You’re in the midst of battle and the court makes a ruling you think is wrong.

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Then in january meaning of writ petition 1955, also another similar case was referred by the government of Same Bata shoes co. Ltd. and its 29 other workers to the same tribunal which was previously constituted. I would like to begin my article by quoting some lines of King Martin Luther as “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his Lordship’s Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India. Finally, after hearing both the parties, the court gives judgement and grants relief accordingly.

In the U.S. today, prisoners must file a civil rights complaint or lawsuit to pursue actions against unfair treatment in state or federal facilities. In some states, depending on the crime, the statute of limitations can be as short as 90 days or as long as two years or more. Prisoners in many states are also only allowed to file habeas corpus once unless they have express permission from an appellate court. However, you cannot file a post-trial habeas corpus petition while your case is pending appeal. You must wait until after the final conviction to file, and you will only be allowed to do so once.

Understanding Writ Petitions: A Comprehensive Guide

1. In most states, judges will deny a habeas corpus case if the petition does not bring up any new evidence.
2. Article 32 and 226 of Indian Constitution provides power to Supreme Court and High Court simultaneously of judicial review of administrative actions and also designed for the enforcement of fundamental rights, in the form of writs.
3. Article 32 and Article 226 provides the right to move to the Supreme Court and the High Court respectively through appropriate proceedings.
4. When  an inferior court or tribunal act in excess of jurisdiction or act without jurisdiction or fails to act then, Writ of Certiorari come into the picture for correcting the errors of jurisdiction.
5. Laid guidelines require rigid compliance, till legislature step into the matter and substitute those guidelines with proper laws.
6. Although this article does not specify any person who can approach the court under it but, as the article provides a public remedy therefore,the provision locus standi as applied in Article 32 will be applied.

It ensures the fulfillment of public duties and upholds private rights that the government holds. A writ of mandamus is typically issued to a public official to carry out a duty that they have so far neglected to perform. Writs can be issued against the judgments of lower courts or individuals, depending on their jurisdiction. Both articles outline the types of writs, the necessary steps, and the requirements that the petitioner must meet in case of a violation of fundamental rights. A writ of Prohibition popular known as “stay order” is issued primarily to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from acting beyond its jurisdiction powers or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Therefore, all the justice done will be spoiled and everyone else has to wonder, what it would take for that same injustice to be done with them. Moreover, there arises a need to provide justice to all and remove the bias from the system. Hence the concept of writ were introduced in Common Law for keeping a judicial eye on the work of administration.

If the official or authority fails to fulfill their duties, a writ of mandamus may be imposed on their behalf, warning them about their unfulfilled public responsibilities and ordering them to complete them. Critics of this process note the shrinking number of cases the Court has agreed to hear in recent years, theorizing that the “cert pool” tends to increase the number of recommended denials. Certiorari simply defined is a “writ” by which a higher court (such as an appellate court) reviews some lower court’s decision (such as a district court). Habeas corpus only applies to the act of imprisonment and whether or not it’s justified; it does not apply to prison conditions.

The writ is a kind of written command, which is given by the High Court to the lower court to follow. A writ petition can be filed by any citizen of India with the high court or Supreme Court in case their fundamental rights are violated by the state body or any government body. The writ petition is an order by the High court to subordinate court or court to do something or guide something. As per the constitution in the Indian Legal system, any citizen can file a writ petition under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court can not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution imposes power in the High Courts of superintendence which is to be very rarely exercised, only to keep tribunals and courts within the bounds of their authority. The transport appellate tribunal, mainly focused its decision on believe that the appellant had a workshop at one terminus of the route in question, and the respondent only has its business and workshop at intermediate station of the route, and issued permit to the appellant. Respondent moved an application to the High Court for a writ of certiorari on the ground that tribunal while making the decision failed to consider material evidence adduced by him as believing that he does not workshop at the terminus and on the same ground High Court quashed the decision of tribunal. Writ of prohibition can’t be issued when there is an error of law unless such error makes it go outside its jurisdiction. Therefore it is clear from this case that if there is want of jurisdiction then the matter is coram non judice and a writ of prohibition is lie otherwise on any other ground other than on point of jurisdiction writ of prohibition can’t be issued.