This article is written by Priyal Jain and further updated by Adv. Devshree Dangi. This article talks about the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and analyses the landmark judgments related to all five kinds of writs issued by the Supreme Court given under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. It also discusses the differences between the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and a High Court, which are enshrined under Articles 32 and 226, respectively.

It has been published by Anshi Mudgal.

Introduction 

Every citizen is guaranteed certain fundamental rights which are enshrined under Articles 12-35 of the Constitution of India. However, granting fundamental rights alone is not sufficient; they must also be protected. Writ jurisdiction is one of the most important components of the legal process in India because it becomes the primary means of enforcement of constitutional rights. It enables a person to approach the superior courts of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, whenever he or she feels that his fundamental rights have been infringed by any public authority. This jurisdiction flows directly from the constitutional provision of justice and the fight against abuse of power and authority.

So, for the protection of fundamental rights, a remedy is given under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs when any of the fundamental rights of any citizen is violated. Similarly, the High Courts are given power under Article 226 to issue writs. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, can issue writs, orders or directions for the enforcement of rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution in respect of cause of action arising within the territory of the High Court, notwithstanding that the writs issued will take effect outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The writs issued in India are called the prerogative writs. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997), 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.

Writs, which are formal written orders issued by a court, are a tool of vital significance to enforce the rights and freedom granted by the Constitution of India. The power of issuing writs empowers the judiciary to play the role of protecting the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and avail means through which rights infringe, may be vindicated. 

This article focuses on the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and its scope on how it protects the fundamental rights embodied under Part III of the Indian Constitution. 

What is the writ jurisdiction? 

The Supreme Court acts as the custodian of the fundamental rights of citizens. It is considered the “guarantor” and “defender” of the fundamental rights of the citizens of India. It has the power to issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Certiorari, and Prohibition. A writ is an order or command from a higher authority (the Supreme Court or High Court) that directs an individual to perform or abstain from performing a certain act. A writ petition can be filed by any individual when his/her fundamental rights are infringed upon by the state. 

Writ jurisdiction is an important component of the Indian legal structure that allows higher courts, which include the Supreme Court and the High Court, to issue writs to enforce legal rights, including fundamental rights. These writs function in a way as strong legal instruments that may require a specific person or public official, or any entity, to do something, or refrain from doing it. This jurisdiction is meant to provide relevant and rapid redress to citizens whose rights have been infringed upon by providing a quick solution to unlawful conduct by public authorities. 

As per the existing provisions of the Indian Constitution, there are five principal forms of writs, all of which perform different functions. They are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition. Altogether, these writs offer a strong legal framework for enforcing the rule of law and defending the citizens’ rights.

Different types of writs

There are five types of writs which are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 32 to the public in case their fundamental rights are being violated. The five types of writs mentioned below are issued in distinct circumstances, and each of them has different imputations. 

• Habeas corpus
• Mandamus
• Quo Warranto
• Certiorari
• Prohibition

The different writs are explained in detail below:

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is a Latin term which means “to have a body of”. The phrase ‘Habeas corpus’ in its longer form is called— “Habeas corpus coram nobis ad subjiciendum,” which means “you must have the body before us for submitting.”  

This writ helps in the release of an unlawfully detained person. By this writ, any person who is either in police or judicial custody or private custody is presented before the court of law and released if such detention is found to be illegal. The burden of proof lies with the public official or the private person who is taking a person into their custody. Article 20 of the Constitution states that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself or herself and that a person cannot be convicted twice or more for the commission of the same offence. The Article also states that a person can only be held liable for a certain offence if, at the time of the commission of the offence, there exists a law which is being violated by the commission of such an offence. This writ is used to enforce the fundamental right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution against unlawful detention. 

The writ petition can be filed by the detained person themselves, or by any of their friends or relatives on their behalf. The writ can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals. 

In which situations can the writ be issued

1. When the detention is not by the procedure established by law.
2. When an arrest is made under a law that in itself is unconstitutional.
3. When the procedure established by law is not strictly followed.

In which situations can the writ not be issued

1. The writ is not available by operation of res judicata if the writ petition has already been dismissed once by the competent court.
2. The writ is not available when the detention of the person is related to the order of the court. 

Illustration– Ram, an individual, was taken into police custody by B, a police officer, without a warrant to arrest Ram. B did not present Ram before the magistrate and also did not allow his family members to know about Ram’s whereabouts for many days. B was physically and mentally torturing Ram. Thus, it can be said that B has wrongfully detained Ram, and a writ of habeas corpus can be issued by Ram’s family on his behalf. 

Relevant case laws

In the case of Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate Darjeeling and Ors. (1974), it was held by the Supreme Court that this writ is procedural and not substantive. The Court also said that there should be a focus on examining the legality of the detention according to the facts of a case.

In the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India and Ors. (1980), it was held that a second writ petition could not be issued if it was filed on the same grounds as the first writ petition. However, if there are certain additional grounds that were not mentioned in the first petition on reasonable grounds, only then will a second writ petition be entertained by the Hon’ble Court. The writ petition, in this case, was filed challenging the order of detention, which was received by the petitioner on certain grounds. Later on, a few additional grounds were added, and thus a second petition was filed for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus by the petitioner. 

In the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1979), the Supreme Court widened the scope of the writ of habeas corpus and held that the writ cannot only be issued in case of an unlawful detention but can also be issued against ill-treatment of prisoners by the officers in authority while in custody, i.e., the writ also provides for the protection of prisoners. (This case is explained in detail below.)

Writ of Mandamus

Mandamus is a Latin term which means “to command”.This writ is issued by a court of higher authority directing the lower courts, or any other public servant, who has failed to perform their duty, to perform their mandatory public duty correctly and efficiently. This writ is the last resort, i.e., it is issued only when all other attempts to solve the problem have been made. The writ can be issued against any type of authority: legislative, judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. 

The writ petition can be filed by any person who, in good faith, wants a public authority to function properly. The writ can be issued against any person or public authority who has failed to perform their mandatory public duty. 

In which situations can the writ be issued 

1. The person or any public authority against whom the writ has to be issued must be under an obligation by law to perform a certain duty, which he has failed or neglected to do. 
2. The public duty must be mandatory, and there must be a failure to perform such a mandatory act. 
3. The petitioner must have a legal right to compel the performance of such public duty.

In which situations can the writ not be issued 

1. This writ cannot be issued against the judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court, compelling them to perform their duty. 
2. This writ cannot be issued against the President of India and the Governor of any state, compelling them to perform their duty. 
3. This writ cannot be issued against the working Chief Justice of India, compelling him to perform his duty. 
4. This writ cannot be issued when the nature of the duty is discretionary. 
5. This writ cannot be issued against a private individual. 
6. This writ cannot be issued to enforce a private contract. 

Example– The writ can be issued to compel the performance of certain public duties like holding elections, preventing dissolution of panchayats and municipalities, or restoration of public offices. 

Relevant case laws

In the case of E.A. Co-operative Society vs. the State of Maharashtra (1966), the State Government had denied the jurisdiction to revise the order of the lower authorities. The issue was to grant membership in the society to the respondent, which was first denied and then accepted by the Registrar of the society. Hence, an application for the issuance of this writ was filed in the concerned High Court, failing which the respondent reached the Supreme Court by special leave petition. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the writ of mandamus can be issued where a public servant has denied its jurisdiction, which it has under the law.

In the case of Sohanlal vs. Union of India (1957), the Government of India allotted plots to the refugees from Pakistan, provided they met the eligibility criteria set by the government. However, the appellant was evicted from his allotted plot, and thus a petition was filed by him for the issuance of this writ. The Supreme Court said that a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private individual provided the private individual has merged with a public authority. 

In the case of Manjula Manjari vs. Director of Public Instruction (DPI) (1952), the Orissa High Court denied issuing a writ of mandamus against the DPI to order him to include the petitioner’s book in his list of approved books because this was a discretionary duty and not mandatory. The petitioner contended that she suffered a great amount of loss in terms of money when her book was not included in the list of approved books for the next year. 

Writ of Quo Warranto

Quo Warranto is a Latin term which means “by what authority”. This writ is issued asking public servants or any private person to prove under what authority they are holding a certain public office. The burden of proof lies with the concerned person. However, if the concerned person fails to prove his authority, he can be removed from public office. This writ prevents any person from wrongfully usurping a public office without any authority. 

The writ petition can be filed by any person whose fundamental rights are being violated, or in the public interest. The writ can be issued against any unlawful holder of a public office (public or private person).

In which situations can the writ be issued 

1. There must be an existence of a public office created by law.
2. The public office must be substantive and permanent. 
3. The position in a public office may be unlawfully held by a private person. 
4. There has been a contravention of the law in appointing a person to the concerned public office. 
5. The duties arising from public office must be public. 

In which situations can the writ not be issued 

1. This writ cannot be issued if there is any political gain to the petitioner by the issuance of this writ. 
2. This writ cannot be issued against any state minister.

Illustration– If A, a public servant, is holding a public office even after his retirement, then this writ can be issued against him as he no longer has the authority to hold such a public office. 

Relevant case laws

In the case of Amarendra Chandra vs. Narendra Kumar Basu (1952), the respondents wrongly admitted themselves to some rival Managing Committee of a private school, and there were many alleged loopholes in the procedure of the respondents being a part of the Committee. The Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata held that the writ of quo warranto could not be issued against usurping a private office. 

In the case of  University of Mysore vs. CD Govinda Rao (1963), the university had appointed a person who did not meet the eligibility criteria required for the post. As a result, an application for the issuance of this writ was presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which said that the office against which the issuance of the writ of quo warranto is prayed for must be “substantive”. 

In the case of Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Dr Rajeshwar Dayal and Ors. (2003), the petitioner, an advocate in Allahabad, filed a writ of quo warranto and prayed that a professor of S. N. Medical College, Agra, was unlawfully appointed. However, the court rejected the petition due to the petitioner’s lack of locus standi, since the petitioner had no link with the institution or appointment either directly or indirectly. The court laid down that, although the locus standi principle is not as rigid in quo warranto petitions as it is in other cases, there still must be some link between the person filing the petition and the particular appointment.

Writ of Certiorari

Certiorari is a Latin term which means “to certify”. This writ is issued by the higher courts (Supreme Court or High Courts) directing a lower court to transfer a particular case to the higher court for consideration. The higher courts also have the authority to quash an already passed order by the subordinate courts. This writ aims to correct the mistakes made by the judiciary at the lower level. 

A writ petition can be filed by any aggrieved person to the Supreme Court or High Courts against the decision given by the lower courts. 

In which situations can the writ be issued 

1. This writ can be issued when a person is bound by a legal authority.
2. This writ can be issued when such a person acts beyond their jurisdiction. 
3. This writ can be issued when a person acting judicially commits an error of law.
4. This writ can be issued when such a person has committed fraud or has violated the principles of natural justice. 

In which situations can the writ not be issued 

1. This writ cannot be issued in cases when the judge refuses to accept the request for review.
2. This writ cannot be issued when the only objective is to waste the time and effort of the court. 

Example– When the decision of the lower court violates the fundamental rights of either of the parties, the aggrieved party can file for the writ of certiorari. 

Relevant case laws

In the case of Noor Mohammad vs. The State of U.P. (2020), the complainant’s sister committed suicide within two years of her marriage because of the harassment she had to face from the appellant and his family members for the demand for dowry. It was held by the Supreme Court that the writ of certiorari can be issued mainly to amend the jurisdiction-related errors made by the lower courts. 

In the case of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. (1963), the appellant was not given the permit for a two-stage carriage to run as an express service by the concerned authorities, even after completing all the required qualifications. As a result, an application was filed before the Supreme Court of India. The Court said that a writ could only be issued if there was an error of law and not an error of fact. 

In the case of M. Ranga Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. (1987), various appeals were made demanding elections of the co-operative societies to be held in the state. However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the writ of certiorari cannot be issued against a private person. 

Writ of prohibition

Prohibition is an English term which means “to forbid or to stop”. This writ is issued to prevent a lower court or tribunal from acting beyond its authorised jurisdiction. After the issuance of this writ, the proceedings in the lower court stop immediately, and the case is transferred to the authority that has jurisdiction over the case. This writ can also be termed a “stay order.” This writ can be issued against any judicial or quasi-judicial body acting beyond its jurisdiction. This writ can be issued in the same situations in which the writ of certiorari is issued, except in cases of error of law. 

Relevant case laws 

In the case of S. Govinda Menon vs. Union of India (1967), several allegations of dishonesty were made against the appellant, which were also to be inquired into by the government. As a result, a writ petition was filed to quash the proceedings initiated against him. The Kerala High Court held that the writ of prohibition can be issued in both situations—excess of jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction. 

In the case of Hari Vishnu vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1954), the appellant was nominated for the election of the Rajya Sabha representing the state of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant won the elections, but an issue was raised that the ballot papers did not contain the distinguishing marks, and the election of the appellant was terminated. The difference between the writ of certiorari and prohibition was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The court thought that one can file for the writ of certiorari only after the judgment of a particular case has been delivered, and on the contrary, one can file for the writ of prohibition when the judgment of a particular case is still pending. The court further ruled that fresh elections must take place. 

In the case of Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. vs. State of A.P. and Ors. (2000), various petitions were filed to prohibit the District Forum or State Commission from addressing any complaints from the respondent. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh said that the writ of prohibition cannot be issued in cases where the District Forum or State Commission has already given judgment. 

Legal provisions under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Article 32 of the Constitution of India 

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is the constitutional base for the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution, once said that “Article 32 is the heart and soul of the Indian Constitution” since it enshrines the right to seek constitutional redress for the enforcement of rights under the Constitution. According to Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs to enforce any of the rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. It is the existence of this remedy that transforms fundamental rights into actually being rights that one can easily put into practice.

Article 32 is given in Part III of the Indian Constitution, which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court in cases of violation of their fundamental rights. The powers provided to the Supreme Court under this Article are:

1. The Supreme Court has the power to relax the locus standi and allow public interest litigation (PIL) by the citizens of India. The Supreme Court can provide relief to bonded labour, undertrial prisoners or victims of extra-judicial killings, etc. 
2. The Supreme Court also has the power to grant exemplary damages. 

• In the case of Bhim Singh vs. the State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985), the fundamental rights of Bhim Singh were violated as he was not presented before the Magistrate within 24 hours. Thus, the Supreme Court ordered the state to grant exemplary damages to Bhim Singh. 
• In the case of Rudul Sah vs. the State of Bihar (1983), the fundamental rights of Rudul Sah were violated as he was illegally detained by the State. Thus, the Supreme Court ordered the State to grant exemplary damages to Rudul Shah. 

3. The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs or orders for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. 
4. The rights of the individuals seeking remedy can be suspended only by the President of India during the proclamation of a national emergency in the country (Article 359).
5. The Supreme Court has said that where relief can be granted by moving to the High Courts under Article 226, the aggrieved party must first move to the High Court. 
6. The Parliament can also transfer the power of the Supreme Court to some other authority with the required jurisdiction. 

Scope and Limitations 

Article 32 has a very wide application so that the Supreme Court can issue a writ against any person or authority, including the Government. This does not mean that the power of the court is unbounded. The writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is exercisable only for the enforcement of fundamental rights; thus, it cannot be used for any other issues. However, this is not considered a bar if a violation of a fundamental right is apparent, and the court may use its discretion in not issuing the writ if another remedy is available. 

Connection between Article 32 and Article 226 

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs, but Article 226 vests similar authority in the High Courts. Compared to Article 32, Article 226 is broader in its application, as the High Court has the powers to issue writs for not only the protection of fundamental rights but also for other purposes such as legal rights, statutory duties, protection against administrative actions, and review of decisions made by public authorities or tribunals. 

In effect, this means that ordinary people can go to High Courts in many capacities, while the Supreme Court only handles violations of fundamental rights. They formed a duality of writ jurisdiction thereby providing the citizens an opportunity to seek justice both at the state level as well as at the national level.

Significance of writ jurisdiction in the Indian law system 

The judiciary in India currently has its highest level the Supreme Court, which primarily deals with the issuing of writs. The Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution of the country. It is commonly known as the “Protector and Guarantor” of the basic rights of the people. Writ jurisdiction is a well-established and fundamental part of the Indian legal system since the country’s formation, as it plays a crucial role in safeguarding the people’s rights as well as upholding the principles of the Constitution and the law. Its importance goes beyond a mere procedural solution. It is a powerful weapon to protect democracy from corruption, unnecessary influence, and injustice. 

The importance of writ jurisdiction can be elaborated through the following aspects:  

Protection of fundamental rights 

Writ jurisdiction is an important resource that has been provided to the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Part III of the Constitution enshrines some fundamental rights of the citizens: the right to life, liberty and equality amongst them. It is also pertinent to mention that all these rights are not given by way of mere declaration of rights but are accompanied by the enforcement procedures by the judiciary. 

If any of these rights, when violated, the affected citizen has the right to directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Courts under Article 226 through the writ petitions. The right to access the Supreme Court and other higher Courts in person and without following the elaborate legal process is one of the key considerations in India’s legal framework. – It makes it possible to protect people’s fundamental rights immediately. 

These rights consist of Habeas Corpus for the protection of personal liberty, Mandamus for making the authorities perform duties and Certiorari for quashing the order, which are legal tools compelling these rights and ensuring the fair working of authorities. By acting as a means of getting a direct remedy for the violation of fundamental rights, it serves as a check on oppression and arbitrary actions of the state. 

Judicial review 

In this regard, judicial review through the writ jurisdiction is one of the foundational features of the Indian Constitution and helps to keep a check and balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. This power of review enables the judiciary to monitor the constitutional provisions and check whether or not the other branches of government overstepped their powers. The judiciary also has an opportunity to control the laws and the executive orders through one of the writs to determine whether they are compliant with the Constitution. 

The courts also have the power to annul any law or order that is deemed to be unconstitutional, therefore asserting the Constitution’s sovereignty. This judicial oversight works as a control against other forms of whimsical, irrational, or unlawful actions on the part of the public authorities, to ensure that there is compliance with the law before any action is taken by the government. 

The common writ, like Certiorari, enables the superior courts to quash erroneous decisions or orders made in the exercise of powers without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdictions granted to lower courts or tribunals. Therefore, judicial review through writ jurisdiction remains essential in upholding constitutionalism and democracy as well as preventing the abuse of power by the state. 

Expeditious remedy 

Perhaps one of the major benefits of the exercise of writ jurisdiction is the prospect of securing an appropriate remedy for the vindication of rights, especially fundamental rights. Therefore, in the Indian legal system, where normal civil or criminal lawsuits can often be time-consuming and procedural, writ petitions are comparatively swift and efficient. The procedure for filing a writ is very simple, allowing direct access to the higher courts without getting involved in lengthy legal procedures. 

Writ petitions are generally accorded preferential treatment by the courts, given the label that accompanies such calls for a hearing, like personal liberty, wrongful confinement or detention, or administrative excess. This comes as a result of enabling a litigant to have expeditious access to justice, especially in cases where time may be of the essence, such as situations where the rights of individuals have been violated. 

The nature of the writs, like prohibition and mandamus, also makes it possible for unlawful actions to be stopped before they can further their deeds, while the curative writs, like Habeas Corpus, also help in the restoration of rights that may have been violated. The possibility of getting relief by invoking the writ jurisdiction has been a major strength as it avoids denial of justice. This ensures that the principle ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ is upheld as the relevant legal system continues to meet the required efficiency. 

Public accountability 

Writ jurisdiction is equally helpful in maintaining transparency and an accountable system of governance since it gives the citizens a chance to seek justice wherever the public officials have gone wrong. When a country practices democracy and the rule of law is followed, there must be certain measures that the authorities should deem appropriate to take that align with the needs and interests of the citizens they are serving. Writ petitions means by which citizens can seek to quash irregular, unlawful, and/or unfair acts committed by or on behalf of the government. 

This also assists in addressing individual complaints and in making sure that public administration is also accountable. Through the power of issuing writs, the acts of the government are monitored and controlled by the judiciary and it also oversees the unlawful conduct of most public officials. The chance of being challenged through a writ petition has a deterring effect on authorities and makes them use their powers as per law. 

In the same way, publicity and scrutiny connected with writ petitions tend to attract attention to some problems within the governance system, and thus result in comprehensive changes and development. Therefore, it can be ascertained that in addition to vindicating particular cases of misuse of authority, writ jurisdiction also helps in maintaining the entailing fabric of efficiency and fairness within the administrative mechanism, thus promoting good governance. 

Original jurisdiction 

In the context of issued writs, the original jurisdiction is one of the important functions of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32. This implies that any person whose constitutional rights have been violated can file a petition to the Supreme Court without going through the lower judiciary. This is one of the vital and distinguishing characteristics of the Indian legal framework, which allows citizens to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the country without passing through certain stages of the existing system. 

The provision of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in writ matters shows that the Constitution is primarily focused on the protection of rights. It does away with procedural complexities that could be experienced, especially in a hierarchical judicial system; it offers a quick solution. This is very much true, especially where speed is of the essence, for example, in cases where a person has been detained unlawfully or where government organs have intruded into an individual’s privacy. In the same regard, the main factor that will give a nod for the Supreme Court to entertain such petitions shows its determination to ensure that while justice is done, it has to be manifested as well, thereby strengthening public confidence in the judiciary. 

Binding precedent 

Therefore, when the Supreme Court decides on the writ petitions that are brought before it, the decision it gives is not only an end to the dispute but also creates legal precedents that are to be obeyed and followed by all the lower courts across the country. This principle of stare decisis makes sure that the meaning to be accorded to the rights and the requirements for their protection are uniform across the country. 

Thus, the precedents created in the framework of writ matters are of paramount importance since they explain the extent and the nature of fundamental rights, determine the behaviour of the authorities, and identify the boundaries of the government’s powers. They are helpful in the formation of constitutional law in India; they offer a sound legal environment that the government and the citizens follow. For instance, case laws like Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) gave new dimensions to the right to life with liberty under Article 21, which revolutionised numerous future cases.

While deciding the cases, the Supreme Court not only dispenses justice but sets legal standards for the country, thus guaranteeing and upholding the rights of all individuals without exception across the country. 

Limitations of writ jurisdiction 

Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies 

The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies is among the key restrictions applied to the writ jurisdiction, which requires that other legal remedies be exhausted before the possibility of a writ is entertained. This is based on the premise that judicial resources have to be used prudently and that all the set procedural mechanisms must be followed. 

Need for exhaustion of the other remedies. 

To be able to claim that the wrongdoing violates a specific right/entitlement, the party needs to comply with the principle of exhaustion. This requirement also guarantees that the issues cannot be solved by first exhausting the more effective mechanisms, like the administrative or the statutory ones. According to this doctrine, judges ensure that they do not intervene in cases when there are other legal means to address them. 

As held in the case of Union of India vs. T. R. Verma (1957), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the fact of procedure established that if an effective remedy is available, then it must be pursued before seeking writ jurisdiction. Hence, the Court affirmed this proposition and said that if such remedies exist, then the High Court is likely to exercise its discretion and dismiss a writ petition. This case established a foundation for demanding compliance with the exhaustion of other legal redress procedures before the invocation of prerogative writs. 

Evaluation of sufficiency and effectiveness 

Adequacy and efficiency are crucial factors in applying the doctrine of exhaustion to the available alternative remedies. The petitioner has to show reasons which make it clear that the available remedy is inadequate or ineffective. The Supreme Court in Sohan Lal vs. Union of India (1957) clarified that the sufficiency of an available remedy is a question of fact and depends on the circumstances of the case. Again, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to show that the other remedy cannot adequately address their concern, thereby explaining the need for a proper assessment of all available choices before resorting to writs. 

Statutory remedies and judicial discretion 

Where the law provides for a particular method of enforcing a right, the courts may, as a rule, demand that those particular methods be followed before a writ petition is filed. 

If a statute has laid down the procedure to be followed for redressing the grievance, the same must be followed. However, while it is up to the court’s discretion to entertain a writ petition, the court should first determine if other remedies have been pursued under the statute or not.  

Judicial interpretation and exceptions 

In the case of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of H. P. (2021), the Supreme Court clarified that it is not unusual to know that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is not an absolute rule but a restriction to the writ jurisdiction of high courts. The Court upheld the proposition that the High Court’s power under Article 226 is vastly enunciated in matters of legal procedure and that the doctrine of availability of other remedies is not a rule of absolute application. This case hence showed that for one or the other, the courts of common law could always resort to their traditional scope of calling for writ jurisdiction, notwithstanding any other legal avenue available. 

Exceptions to the doctrine 

Nevertheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is not without exception in writ matters, as this can be observed: For instance, writs may be awarded for enforcement of fundamental rights, where natural justice has been disappointed, in matters touching jurisdiction or constitutional issues. In the cases of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks Mumbai (1998), and Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2002), the court held that the availability of other remedies cannot by themselves be a bar to the granting of the writs in certain circumstances. These exceptions make sure that the option of the writ jurisdiction is open for handling complicated legal problems and the defence of people’s rights and freedoms where other forms of redress have been accessible. 

Therefore, the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies has been accepted by the Apex Court as a restrictive principle on writ jurisdiction but is accompanied by the exceptions under which the writs can be issued in the circumstances where there are no other remedies available for a legal wrong done or when the rights of individuals are infringed. It partly enhances judicial efficiency, whereas we are made sure that important legal matters are properly considered. 

Doctrine of laches

Laches is an equitable doctrine that seeks to avoid preposterous delay in the prosecution of a legal claim. It prevents legal actions where the plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within a reasonable time that will impair the defendant’s ability to present their defence. This principle emphasizes early availability to advance claims under the law and the necessity of responding effectively to such claims to ensure equity in the legal process. Especially in applying the writ jurisdiction, particularly to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the doctrine of laches plays a pivotal role in preserving the standards of judicial oversight. 

A guide to the doctrine of laches 

The doctrine of laches applies to a situation when a party has unduly delayed their claim to harm the party against which the claim is sought. This principle is used to warrant that people follow up their claims without much delay, hence not prejudicing the case over time. In the field of writ jurisdiction, particularly within the Supreme Court, this doctrine assumes significance. The court evaluates if the petitioner has made an application within a reasonable time for the judicial review or relief. However, where the delay is considered wrongful, the Court can dismiss the writ petition as such delay prejudices the administration of justice.

Application of case law in writ jurisdiction 

In the case of Haryana State Handloom vs. Jain School Society (2003), the Supreme Court faced the question of laches in the backdrop of a writ petition questioning a notification of land acquisition passed under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It had been issued on 26th October, 1976 and possession of the lands was also taken by the government. But this writ petition was filed after 17 years in December 1993. The petitioner further explained that the delay was occasioned by waiting to see if the land is going to be developed for the intended use. The Supreme Court stated that a one-and-a-half-year delay was unreasonable and added that due to the laches, the petition was liable to be dismissed. By taking a long time to respond to the petition, it showed negligence and improper motives and therefore, the petition was dismissed. 

In the case of Dr. Karan Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985), Dr. Karan Singh, the son of the former Maharaja of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, tried to claim Toshakhna as his private property arguing that the abolition of his father’s rulership had not affected his proprietary rights over it. It was done after 30 years, which is quite unusual. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of the doctrine of laches, where the period of delay is unreasonable and there were no special circumstances to excuse the delay. The decision has highlighted the fact that reopening matters after such a long time is unfair and detrimental to the effectiveness of judicial review. 

As was seen in the case of Ved Prakash Goel vs. S. D. Singh (2020), the petitioner had protested a seniority list prepared and released in May 2005, five years after the list had been made. This delay in filing the petition was not accompanied by any serious and sensible reasons. The Supreme Court had enumerated that, based on this concept of laches, delay is considered unreasonable. The Court also mentioned in its considerations that reopening settled issues may produce a prejudicial impact on the rights of other parties. The ruling by the Court accentuated the fact that timeliness is essential in judicial review if the rights that have been established are to be safeguarded, coupled with fairness in the process.  

Differentiation between laches and the Statute of limitations 

This could be so since, while laches serve to prevent an undue delay, the issue of delay is perhaps taken care of by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations defines a time duration before which legal processes have to be started. It means a strict period that lays down rules with statutory provisions. However, in equity, the doctrine of laches is far more flexible, with the emphasis placed not only on the delay and prejudice thereby caused. 

In writ jurisdiction and especially in the Supreme Court, laches is deemed as a measure of whether delays in the filing of a petition will be detrimental towards the case. For this reason, while the statute of limitations sets time limitations that are rigid, laches looks at the extent of prejudice that the delay is going to cause to justice, besides the ability of the defendant to respond. 

Discretion of the court, limitations on writ jurisdiction

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary 

In the case of writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has also clarified that where no legislation deals with the limitation period, the court cannot solve this problem through judicial legislation. While it is inherent in any writ jurisdiction that this discretion to issue legal remedies is exercised to do justice and to redress a grievance where a fundamental right has been infringed, the discretion is not unfettered and has to be guided by the principles of law. This principle was also highlighted in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. C. S. Verma (1968) wherein it was held that the law of limitation cannot be relaxed by the court unless so provided by statute. 

Write the jurisdiction and limitation in refund cases

There are instances where the Supreme Court of India has made some departures from the rigidity of the law of limitation in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly where a refund was claimed for an amount that had been recovered under provisions later declared void or unconstitutional. In the case of  Shiv Shankar Dal Mills vs. State of Haryana (1980), the Supreme Court came across a claim for refund of excess market fees which was made under a provision that was held ultra-vires. 

The court added that although the market committees could have filed civil suits within the limitation period, the public nature of the funds and the error in levies ought to entitle the litigant to more favourable treatment in the writ jurisdiction. From the observations made by the court, it could be deduced that the Court was willing to extend relief beyond strict limitation rules because of the nature of public funds and the equitable principle that justice delays or denies not on technicalities. 

Judicial discretion in case of mistake of law 

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai (1962), the court discussed the legal position on applications for refunds under the mistake of law. The court stated that while it has the discretion to determine the extent of repayment where the tax was paid under void legislation, this discretion is not automatic. The decision whether or not to grant relief is solely based on the factual circumstances and context of the case. This case exemplifies that whereas the Court can grant relief beyond the ordinary limitation periods, it will do so, keeping in mind the merits of every case. 

Limitations on the court’s discretion

However, as is seen from the above cases, the Supreme Court has also clarified that even in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the restrictions contemplated by law are not altogether done away with. For example, in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Suresh Chandra Bose (1979), the Calcutta High Court was following the principle pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai (1962) that though it laid down certain rules as to limitations for different cases, it was not laying down any general period of limitation for such cases. The High Court underlined that the parties had to request refunds or relief within a reasonable time and noted that the Court cannot exercise its discretion when an unreasonable delay is present, even though the action is to be filed beyond such periods for civil actions. 

Need for legal clarity. 

To balance discretionary powers of writ jurisdiction with legal certainty, it is argued herein that specific legal provisions relating to the treatment of limitation and unconscionable conduct ought to be fine-tuned. As suggested, Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 needed an addition of an explanation for handling the cases of unconscionable conduct. Further, this would assist in making sure that the cases of mistake of law can be dealt with in the most efficient manner possible. It also affirms that the aforementioned claims are addressed squarely with impartiality to maintain the equality of justice. This would give better guidance on how limitations should be used where discretion is necessary for determining writ jurisdiction, but where procedural rules still play an important role.

Impact of public interest litigation on writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Increased application of the doctrine of judicial review 

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has shaken the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it has expanded the sphere of judicial activism. Writ jurisdiction was previously confined to specific individual complaints, while PILs have enabled the court to take up widespread injustice affecting large groups of people. It has shifted the balance to give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to always intervene in cases of infringement of fundamental rights and where there is a need for a huge social change. By adopting PILs, the courts can be informed about matters that may not be presented before them through individual applications. It also increases their function as representatives of public interest and the defenders of constitutional provisions. 

Justice for underprivileged groups 

An area of PILs that has been widely felt about the writ jurisdiction is the improvement of the chances of the deprived sections of society to seek redress. In PIL procedures, people or organisations may seek to bring petitions on behalf of some people whom they cannot petition directly due to some factors such as financial barriers. For instance, cases such as Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) brought out the problems faced by undertrial prisoners, and it ended with their release. It shows how PILs can bring positive change to disadvantaged groups in society. It also underscores the contention that the PILs are valuable in dealing with social justice causes that would otherwise not be brought to the courts. 

Judicial activism and reform 

PILs have furthered litigation activism and have brought about legal and social change in their own right. Since PIL enables the court to hear complaints and problems of the public, many transformations have occurred in different fields such as prison reforms, environmental concerns, human rights and other comparable concerns. As mentioned above, due to the Supreme Court’s propensity to receive PILs, various significant legal precedents have been set, influencing public policies and legislation. For instance, PILs dealing with environmental issues such as degradation and pollution have made the courts call for improvements in the environmental legal measures and implementation. 

The development of the PIL has especially affected the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and allowed the oppressed sections of society to seek justice, besides the provision of giving the Apex Court a chance to adjudicate system problems rather than focusing on complaints. They have enabled the invocation of the judiciary’s authority in issues of public interest, environmentalism, and human rights, which enriched and enhanced the jurisdiction of the writs. With the introduction of technology, writ jurisdiction has also been changed in the sense that it has made the methods for getting justice easier and more effective. It deals with the concepts of electronic filing, hearing, and other aspects that allow for avoiding some difficulties.

Challenges and limitations 

However, for all the good that PILs have brought, they also have their problems and drawbacks. The court has observed that there has been an increase in junk PILs, which bring discredit to the PIL system. The Court in the State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) complained about the use of PIL for matters that do not constitute public interest. This case also raised issues that the courts should closely analyse the writ petitions in the form of PIL to establish that they possess merits of serving public interest as opposed to private interest. 

PILs have also impacted the procedural and substantive law of the jurisdiction of the writs. The courts have also set demanding criteria for the admissibility of PILs to exclude non-referable petitions. This entails ascertaining the identity of the petitioner and evaluating the public interest as to merit. The pros of PILs in terms of procedure are the relaxation of rules regarding standing and relief, to enable the court to deal with matters that are beyond individual interest but require judicial intervention. 

PILs have affected the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by increasing its scope, improving opportunities for powerless communities, and encouraging judicial activism and change. Although PILs have brought social and legal transformations, issues regarding the quality and appropriateness of petitions remain contentious. While the Supreme Court faces these challenges, the use of PILs in reforming the writ jurisdiction and in addressing issues of public interest remains a significant feature of the Indian judicial system. 

Difference between the writ jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court

Factor	Supreme Court	High Court
Scope of authority	The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction writs are applicable all across the nation.	The writ jurisdiction of a High Court is restricted, and it can only issue winding up orders in its state or territory.
Provision	The power of the Supreme Court to issue writs is mentioned in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.	The power of a High Court to issue writs is mentioned in Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
Purpose	Intended for the resolution of matters of national concern, such as infringements of constitutional rights extending to the whole country or disputes concerning national organisations.	Covers topics of concern and liberties of a particular state or region, state actions or state and regional controversies.
Jurisdictional reach	Has the power to issue writs that affect the whole nation, direct it to other states or central organisations.	Issues writs that are enforceable only within its state and emphasises the state issues.
Hierarchy	As the highest court in the land, it has the ultimate jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals in the country, as all its decisions are conclusive.	Acts as the highest court within its State but is inferior to the Supreme Court, with its decisions being reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Types of cases	Deals with such questions as constitutional, national policy questions, inter-state questions, and others of general importance.	Hears cases involving a region/region’s affairs, such as the conflict with the State authorities, state-specific administrative proceedings and concerns.
Role in fundamental rights	Monitors fundamental rights violations on a wider level, especially if it is across several states or the entire Country.	Promotes and protects fundamental rights in its territory and deals with cases of rights abuses at the state or regional level.
Nature of relief	Offers help in instances where there are matters affecting the public which cross state boundaries, like violation of national policies.	Specific type of relief that includes cases that are related to the state or region alone and does not prejudice national policies.
Enforcement	Directions given by the Supreme Court of India are mandatory for all Central and State authorities and other lower courts throughout the country to follow legal principles and guidelines evenly.	The orders of the High Court are state-enforceable, which means that the enforcement is checked at the State level.
Legal precedents	The Supreme Court judgments become or are the leading authorities for all lower Courts as well as other High Courts in India, setting national legal principles.	High Court for another within the same state, but does influence the lower Courts within the same state and does not supersede the Supreme Court.
When can a writ be issued?	The Supreme Court can issue writs only when the fundamental rights of an individual are violated.	The High Court can issue writs in two circumstances: when the fundamental rights of an individual are violated, and when the legal rights of an individual are violated, the issuance of the writ is a proper remedy in such a case under the law.

Does the principle of res judicata apply to writ petitions?

Res judicata, or the principle that bars the same matter from being heard by a court again, is embraced under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It seeks to provide judicial finality and prevent needless new rounds of trial. A very pertinent question, however, which comes to the mind is whether the above proposition applies to the writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of India, more so in the writ petitions under Article 32..

In the classical case of Daryao vs.State of UP (1961) Supreme Court laid down that res judicata applies to writ petitions. Here, the case was a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was earlier rejected by the High Court on merits, and the petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court stated that where a writ petition has been dismissed on merit, the same issue cannot be brought again to this Court for determination because it detracts from the principle of finality of any decision and may lead to two different decisions of this Court. But the Court was particular that where the previous dismissal was on procedural grounds, for example, lack of jurisdiction, or misjoinder of parties, res judicata would not apply. 

Similarly, in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. vs. Janapada Sabha (1962), the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle, stating that res judicata applies even if the writ petitions are filed under different constitutional provisions as well. The case pointed to the issue of involving identical claims in the legal procedure of the justice system.

In like manner, in Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab (1955), the Court laid down that in cases where a fresh writ petition on the subject matter has been dismissed then they will not be entertained unless there is manifest injustice or a mistake which could be detected on the face of the record.

Similarly, in the recent case of P. Bandopadhya vs. Union of India (2019), the Apex court has relied on the legal principle of res judicata to dismiss the writ petition in which the petitioner sought to ventilate a matter which has already been settled by the Apex Court. As for the matter discussed above, the Court considered the principle that a matter that has been litigated on merit cannot again be the subject matter of two successive writ petitions. This case also came under writ jurisdiction and reasserted the principle that grants of finality are necessary to prevent particular misuse of legal process. However, the Court stated that where the petition has been dismissed on technical merits, then res judicata would not apply.

Therefore, by way of these cases, it can be seen that the doctrine of res judicata applies to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 so that the law does not become the victim of its proceduralism. But the Court has ensured a measure of flexibility to ensure that in cases where procedural dismissals were rendered because those matters were affected by technicalities, justice has not been defeated. Such an approach ensures that on one side the purity of the efficacy of the judicial process is preserved, as well as on the other side human rights are not violated.

Judgments on writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)

Facts

In this case, Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Mutt, a charitable religious institution of Kerala, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution against the State of Kerala, challenging the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. This law provided the government the legal ground for exercising eminent domain and taking over private property, including Mutt’s lands, for land redistribution, especially in favour of the landless. He claimed that the Act was an invasion of his fundamental rights and freedoms as provided for under the Constitution; equality, right to property and protection from the acquisition of property in an unfair manner. He pointed out that the legislation affected his resolutions by limiting his freedom and seizing his property without adequate compensation.

However, during the period of the case, Parliament passed three other important constitutional amendments. The Parliament was affirmatively empowered by the 24th Amendment enacted in 1971 to alter in any way the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights, and this power was made immune from constitutional scrutiny. The 25th Amendment of 1971 amended Article 31 of the Constitution which sets out to acquire property with or without paying the owners, the current holders of property rights. Lastly, the 29th Amendment of 1972 provided that certain land reform laws, namely the Kerala Land Reforms Act & others) would be added to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and hence would not be justiciable. This expanded the scope of the case to a larger constitutional question: does the Parliament have the power to alter the Constitution, especially about Fundamental Rights?

Issues

• Whether the Parliament have the authority to amend or alter the Constitution specifically about fundamental rights?
• Whether the Parliament has inherent limits as to its amending power, especially if it affects the basic framework of the Constitution?
• Whether the  24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments constitutionally valid?
• Whether the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969 violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner?
• Were the laws placed in the Ninth Schedule immune from judicial review even if they infringe upon the Fundamental Rights?

Judgement

The Supreme Court, with a 7:6 majority, has held that the Parliament cannot exercise unlimited powers of amending the Constitution. The Court set out the Basic Structure Doctrine, under which it was held that certain amendments are beyond the parliamentary amendment process since they seek to change the Constitution’s fundamental characteristics. The judgement enhanced the understanding of the legal position that while it is true that Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend most of the parts of the Constitution including any part thereof, it does not empower Parliament to amend or destroy the Preamble which espouses, inter alia, the democratic republic of India; the supremacy of the Constitution; the republican and liberal character of the Indian polity; secularism; and the-parliamentary system of governance.

Fundamental Rights can thus be amended by Parliament as supported by the Court in the case of the 24th Amendment. Nevertheless, this power is limited by the Basic Structure Doctrine, which implies that any change would be unconstitutional if it harms the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus, while partly endorsing the 25th Amendment namely regarding the alteration of the property right, and the lifting of the prerogative of the courts over laws enacted to give effect to Directive Principles of State Policy save for, the Court invalidated the provision that implied the bar to the Court’s supervisory role over laws that would otherwise transgress the basic Structure of the Constitution.

About the 29th Amendment that put the Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule and thereby immunised them from being tested for their constitutional validity, the Court affirmed the Amendment. But it held that the laws proposed to be incorporated under the Ninth Schedule in future would not enjoy protection from judicial scrutiny if they subvert the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Finally, the ruling severely limited the power to amend the Constitution that belonged to Parliament while keeping the power of the judiciary intact for the protection of constitutional fundamentals. The judgment also discussed the Basic Structure Doctrine as a shield against any destructive amendments to affect the provisions of the Constitution.

Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1979)

Facts

In this case, in Tihar Jail, many prisoners were recidivists, who hardly received any visitors from home because of their previous records. But instead they were attended by other criminals they knew. Some of these prisoners had established unlawful relationships with the members of the prison staff, wherein drugs were supplied to the prisoners. Hence, it led to several cases filed against them. The jail was also congested, containing over twice the number of prisoners it was meant for.  Also, young boys were apprehended and were turned into helpers in the jail, regardless of the rights they deserved. Some of these boys stated that they had been falsely arrested and confined in jail for no lawful cause, so they raised concerns about the rampant use of the writ of habeas corpus to safeguard their liberties. 

Issues

• Whether the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to deal with the petition filed by a convict in the present case?
• Whether a convict entitled to the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether Sections 30(2) and 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894, are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?

Judgement 

The Apex Court in Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration case established that it retained jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution and noted that prisoners’ fundamental rights included Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court pointed out that because of imprisonment, the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 is not lost and violative of Article 21. The prisoners have to be treated with dignity. It dealt with Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894, which permits solitary confinement in certain circumstances and stated that even though the provision may be needed for reformation or protection from themselves or others or for refusing to obey the order, etc, they cannot torture or treat the prisoner derogatorily. In Sunil Batra’s case, as the sentence of death penalty had been given but not confirmed when the applicant’s case was being considered, the Court said that the provision should not be applied to him and he cannot be tested on solitary confinement under this section.

The judgment also studied Section 56 of the Prisons Act in more detail and which empowers prison authorities to use restraints for disciplinary measures. The Court explained that such actions should be performed only with judicial or governmental sanctioning so that the actions are not abused, undermining Articles 14 and 21. The judgment also focused on the issues of prison conditions and negatively assessed such aspects of jail regulations that remain untouched by reform, calling humane treatment of prisoners an important factor to help them to law-abiding citizens. This ruling therefore reinforced the understanding that prisoners are not excluded from the protection of the law; in fact, they are afforded protection of their rights as human beings.

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs. Bikartan (2023)

Facts

The facts of this case consist of an appeal in civil law by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) arising from a judgment given in the Orissa High Court. The respondent was appointed by CCRAS as a Research Assistant in the year 1985. The Union Cabinet in 2017 decided to raise the retirement age for AYUSH doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH and CGHS hospitals to 65 years. But such a decision did not apply to autonomous bodies under the Ministry of AYUSH, which included CCRAS. 

The respondent, having attained the age of 60 years and wishing to enjoy the effect of the adjusted retirement age, made a representation, which was declined. The CCRAS gave a notification that the respondent would retire on 30-04-2018 since he attained the age of 60 years. 

Initially, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Cuttack Bench, did not grant interim relief but allowed the respondent to remain in service based on the High Court protection granted to the respondent and finally dismissed the petition in favour of the respondent. The CA, T in due course, rejected the respondent’s original application; the High Court of Orissa expunged this order given the respondent’s being treated as an AYUSH doctor appointed as a researcher, which would entitle her to an enhanced retirement age. Consequently, CCRAS contested this decision before the Supreme Court. 

Issues

The first question of law that came before the Supreme Court involved the appropriateness of the High Court in equating the retirement age of the respondent to that of doctors practising under the AYUSH Ministry, even though the respondent works in CCRAS, which is an autonomous body. 

Judgement

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and quashed the judgment of the High Court. The court took the view that CCRAS is a statutory body that has its own bylaws and regulates superannuation under its bylaws. The rules made for government employees, including those under the Ministry of AYUSH, are not applicable to the employees of autonomous organisations such as CCRAS unless otherwise provided. The court stressed that superannuation is regulated by a set of rules applicable to the post and cannot be changed due to the nature of the work.

The court also expressed disapproval over the Orissa High Court’s decision since it erroneously awarded interim relief of extending the respondent’s service, and the High Court had legally erred in equating the respondent with AYUSH doctors by stating that they performed similar duties. The Supreme Court once again affirmed that service conditions, which include the retirement age, are provided for in legislation and not through a judicial comparison of other functions deemed to be similar. As such, the order in question of the High Court was viewed as unsustainable and hence was quashed.n

RS Madireddy and Anr vs. Union of India and Ors (2024)

Facts

This case concerns the appeals reversing the judgment made in the Bombay High Court, in which four writ petitions were prosecuted by the authors, who are the former employees of the AIL. The appellants in the appeal were the members of Air India Limited’s (hereinafter referred to as ‘AIL’) cabin crew who worked in the company in the late 1980s and retired in 2016-2018. They filed writ petitions stating non-payment or stagnation at pay level for long years without promotion, which violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the High Court refused relief primarily because the privatisation of AIL occurred in between. These appeals were subsequently filed.

Issues

• Whether after the privatisation of Air India Limited (AIL) to be overtaken by a private corporate giant, it could still fall under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
• If the appellants could be non-suited on the basis that while their writ petitions were pending, Air India Limited (AIL) was a government instrumentality and in February 2002 it ceased to be so and became a private company.
• If at all, the delay in the disposal of the writ petitions could be made a reason to support the appellants’ claims against the private entity.

Judgement

The Supreme Court, while affirming the insufficient reasoning in the judgment under appeal from the Honourable Bombay High Court, has observed that after its privatisation, AIL cannot be directed under the original law of writ jurisdiction as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court pointed out that ALI was originally a government company within the framework of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 and later, within the provisions of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1994 it falls within the meaning of ‘other authority’ within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. 

However, later in the year 2022, the government of India held 100% stakes in AIL to the company called Talace India Pvt. Ltd., as a result of which AIL is no longer doing any public sector duty as it has turned into a private sector company. In support of this position, the Court relied on earlier decisions such as Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.(2016) and Tarun Kumar Banerjee vs. BALCO (2021), where it was held that on privatisation of a government entity, writ jurisdiction cannot be followed. 

The court also pointed out that the appellants were working in AIL when it remained as a part of the government structure. However, by the time the mentioned writ petitions were heard, the company was privatised. Therefore, the High Court of Bombay rightly rejected the appellants’ prayers for equitable relief, stating that they could seek their remedies in a proper procedure but not through Article 226 of the Constitution. 

Finally, the Supreme Court held that it is impermissible by law to retain the writs to be disposed of or requested against the privatised entity since the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ to a private entity. On that basis, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court of Bombay, thereby resulting in the dismissal of appeals. 

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise & Taxation Officer (2023)

Facts

The appellant in the present case had filed a civil writ petition against the revisional orders passed by the revisional authority under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for the assessment years 2003-2004 & 2004-2005. The appellant also filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was rejected, and the court directed the appellant to avail the remedy available under Section 33 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, which was an appeal. The respondents argued that there was no illegality in the suo motu revisional power, which was extended by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Revisional Authority). 

Issues 

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were: 

• Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was right in refusing the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that there is a remedy available under Section 33 of the VAT Act, which the appellant had not availed.
• Whether the revisional authority was entitled to invoke suo motu revisional power under the circumstances. 

Judgement

The Supreme Court made a finding of a principle of law that even though the appellant had an option of an appeal or revision, which he did not exercise, it does not mean that Article 226 jurisdiction of the High Court will be displaced. The writ petition should not have been dismissed simply on this ground. The court further explained that although High Courts do not usually entertain a writ application if an ordinary civil remedy is available to the affected party, this makes a writ petition “not maintainable. ” Between’ maintainability’ and ‘entertainability’ of a writ petition, the court made it clear that the two are not the same thing. 

The Supreme Court also looked at the legal aspects of the revisional orders and concluded that the revisional orders suffered from patent illegality by the revisional authority. According to it, the orders passed by the assessing authority were legally sustainable, while the revisional authority had taken a wrong step in exercising suo motu powers. This court, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the writ petition, made the interim order made on 18-01-2010 absolute. The Court declined to refer the matter back to the High Court due to the lengthy period that had elapsed since the initial orders were passed. 

Therefore, this judgment reinforces the position that a decision that has some other remedy open to it does not exclude the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where the matter turns on a pure question of law or question of jurisdiction.

St. Mary’s Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023) 

Facts

This was a case of an employee of a private unaided minority educational institution known as St. Mary’s Education Society who claimed that he was unlawfully dismissed and sought redress in the court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had laid down that the writ petition was maintainable so that the employee could challenge his dismissal. The institution contended that as it was a private unaided minority educational institution, the writ petition should not have been maintainable and the institution cannot be treated as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, and the matter was a contractual dispute and hence, was not a case of public law.

Issues

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:

• Whether an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is tenable against a private unaided minority institution.
• Whether a service dispute between a private educational institution and its employee can be heard in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the question arises whether the institution comes under the statutory regulation and the dispute is in respect of a contractual relationship.

Judgement

In the Supreme Court, it was a similar position that was upheld in the case of Ramakrishna Mission vs. Kago Kunya (2019). The court said that although private unaided minority institutions may carry out activities that could impact public functions or duties, as per the Bombay High Court, a worker cannot invoke the powers granted under Article 226 for service matters that have not been provided under the statutes. The Court stressed that Article 226 is aimed at solving the problems connected with public law elements and all actions of a body performing public law powers are not to be reviewed with the help of this provision.

The court observed that while the educational institution is doing a public duty of imparting education, it is not a court of law. It was observed that entertaining purely contractual claims in relation to employment rights that are not conferred by statute is not permissible in the writ petition. 

For this reason, the writ petition, in this case, was not sustainable since it regarded a service grievance that fell within the domain of private law, which did not meet the standard of having an aspect of public law in conformity with Article 226. The appeal of the High Court decision was therefore superseded by the Supreme Court through a decision that recommended that the dismissal of the employee by the institution could not be entertained through the writ jurisdiction since it was not based on any statutory provision or a violation of public law.

Tara Singh And Ors vs. Union Of India & Ors (2016)

Facts

The petitioner in this case was convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to have a writ of mandamus issued to the Government to release him on parole based on good behaviour and how they discharge the responsibilities that they receive while undergoing sentence. The petitioner attempted to invoke Chapter XIX of the new Punjab Jail Manual, 1996, which speaks about remission on good conduct and performance, etc. But this was refused as Section 32-A of the NDPS Act does not allow any remission of the benefit. The petitioner also referred to the constitutional provision in the Supreme Court decisions regarding the constitutional validity of Section 32-A of the NDPS Act to assert that the denial of remission was arbitrary.

Issues

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

• Whether the power of remission or pardon under Article 32 of the Constitution is vested in the court will be in a similar line or to the same extent as the powers vested in the constitutional authorities mentioned in Articles 72 and 161.
• Whether the petitioner was denied remission under Section 32-A of the NDPS Act, which has prompted the petitioner to invoke their rights under Article 32.
• Whether the ground on which the petition argued Article 142 read with Article 32 to grant remission, intended for enforcing Supreme Court decrees, was sustainable or not.

Judgement

The Supreme Court observed that the argument for the Court to exercise powers akin to the provisions of Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution through Article 32 was not sustainable. Article 32 is provided to be invoked for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and not for the grant of remission or pardon. These include powers vested in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161. 

The court observed that the said statutory power is under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 476 in Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and needs to be clearly distinguished from the constitutional power under Articles 72 and 161. Considering the provision of Section 32-A of the NDPS Act regarding the prohibition of remission, the petitioner cannot avail of any remission under the CrPC. But, the latter could still approach what is within the domain of Article 72 or 161 of our Constitution. 

The Court also held that invoking Article 32 along with Article 142 for the grant of remission was an absurdity because Article 32 deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Thus, the petition was withdrawn, clarifying the constitutional powers and the correct application of Article 32.

Critical analysis

Concerning the basic protection of constitutional rights, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been widely criticised due to its broad use. Originally introduced to protect against state encroachment into the rights of citizens, the court of writ jurisdiction has evolved to encompass a vast number of concerns, and occasionally steps beyond its intended purview. This expansion has raised an intellectual controversy as to whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of this jurisdiction, is overstepping its constitutional mandate, in a manner that trespasses the domain of the legislature and the executive branch. 

The judiciary’s primary responsibility is to interpret and apply the law; the use of writs as often as the Supreme Court has, has sometimes resulted in the court establishing policy or influencing the government more than it should, given its legal mandate of solving legal issues. This overextension can erode the integrity of the very separation of powers that is the hallmark of a Constitutional democracy.

The other important problem is the disparity in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Due to this discretionary power, the Supreme Court has managed to handle some of the writ petitions, while some are left to fester or even dismissed outright. Although essential in controlling the load of cases the court handles, this discretion often leads to inconsistency and sparks off issues of bias among the judges. 

The broad nature of the writ jurisdiction entails that the judges are at many times left to decide on matters such as human rights abuses or administrative negligence, which matters are more of a policy in nature and therefore raise issues of the difference between the doctrine of judicial review and government accountability. Perhaps the jurisdiction requires a more organised and consistent application of the writ powers so that it achieves the intended purpose of correcting injustices, and not simply allows the courts to make arbitrary decisions.

However, due to these powers that the writ jurisdiction comes with, the jurisdiction sometimes faces procedural complexities that hinder its functionality. Even though writs are often sought to get quick relief, the delay in case proceedings negates the very purpose of exercising the power of the writs. This means that cases take a long time before they are addressed and heard in court and procedural formalities, hence, justice may be delayed. This is especially the case in cases where the petitioner finds him/herself in a common precarious position, such as in writ petitions where the rights of the petitioner are vulnerable in the imminent period. The opportunity of the writ jurisdiction is that it enables effective, timely intervention. 

When, however, the backlog in courts is constantly increasing, it becomes evident that reforms targeting procedures and aimed at eliminating time-consuming steps that would impair the efficacy of this essential constitutional right are needed. 

Conclusion 

Writ jurisdiction is crucial in the protection of fundamental rights as it vests the Supreme Court and the High Courts to make declarations in matters violating constitutional provisions and provisions for remedies in cases of violation. The judicial power guarantees people’s ability to protect their rights and turn to justice when they are violated by state officials. The concept of writ jurisdiction is not limited to given cases as it not only serves the purpose of benefiting a party but also helps in keeping equilibrium between the government and the governed, along with setting up the principle of law. 

In any democratic country, it is vital for judicial review, especially in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to check on the actions of the government to make sure they are within the confines of the constitution or laws. It serves as a shield against unfair or corrupt measures, making the government more assertive in terms of governance. It could be said that the further development of the writ jurisdiction in India will remain significant in the future for responding to new legal and societal problems and making sure that the principles of justice and human rights are at the core of India’s legal system. 

The authority to issue writs is vested in the Supreme Court.  The issuance of writs is the greatest security provided to the citizens of the country for their security. Therefore, the court must use this authority discreetly to ensure quick and fair justice for the aggrieved parties. No one should misuse this power of the higher courts, and only reasonable issues must be considered for the issuance of writs. Lastly, in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala (1973), the largest ever 13-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Article 32 is a part of the basic structure doctrine, and thus it is beyond the amending powers of the parliament. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Can a district court issue writs?

The District Court can issue writs only when the district judge is empowered by the parliament to do so. It helps in providing fair and speedy justice to the public. 

Can a person file a writ petition on another person’s behalf?

Yes, anyone can file a writ petition on behalf of another person. 

Which Article of the Indian Constitution provides High Courts with the power to issue writs?

The High Courts can issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution not only in situations where the fundamental rights of an individual are violated but also in other situations. 

Is Article 32 applicable to things other than the enforcement of fundamental rights? 

No, Article 32 is not at all regarding the enforcement of other rights, but it is solely for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court can also exercise its discretion in issuing the writs in case of violation of fundamental rights, where other remedies exist as well. 

In what way does Article 32 of the Constitution vary from Article 226? 

Article 32 of the Constitution limits the powers of the Supreme Court to issue writs solely for the enforcement of fundamental rights. In contrast, Article 226 gives the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for the protection of legal rights. The High Courts, through Article 226, address a wide range of issues including administrative decisions, legal remedies, and matters beyond constitutional rights. Thus, it is more comprehensive in its application as compared to Article 32. 

Is the power under Article 32 of the Supreme Court transferable? 

No, the power under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers a person or the people to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights, is not transferable. The provision is meant for the persons to directly seek remedies for the infringement of their basic rights, and the essence is laid on the individual right to approach the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the individuals can appoint advocates to speak on their behalf in the court. 

Whether the rights under Article 32 be suspended? 

Yes, the right to move to the Supreme Court under Article 32 can be suspended during a national emergency as laid down in Article 359 of the Constitution. 

Is it possible to file a writ petition when other legal remedies are available? 

Usually, no; the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies states that before filing a writ petition, all other legal remedies, like statutory or administrative remedies, must be exhausted. Judicial authorities also expect people to avail themselves of such official legal remedies first. However, there are exceptions like where there is a violation of fundamental rights, where the other relief is inadequate or ineffectual. 

What are the implications of a significantly delayed writ petition? 

Failure to present a writ petition to the court for a reasonable time may lead to the application of the doctrine of laches. This doctrine bars parties from delaying the filing of legal claims, as it would have adverse effects on the side of the defending party. In such circumstances, the courts may dismiss the petition on grounds of delay as is evident from one of the cases, like Haryana State Handloom vs. Jain School Society, where the delay was 17 years. 

Can the law of limitation be in any way relaxed in cases of writ petition, involving refund? 

Even in the writ cases, there are, however, certain degrees of flexibility in limitation laws as far as the refund is concerned, especially when taxes or levies were paid under void or unconstitutional provisions. For instance, in Shiv Shankar Dal Mills vs. State of Haryana, the court went beyond the limitation rules in extending reliefs, citing that it was dealing more with public funds and equity in such kinds of cases. However, this discretion is not absolute but must be exercised on a case-by-case basis.

What is SUPACE, and how can this solution be used to help address writ petitions?

SUPACE – Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency – is an online tool employed by the Supreme Court to expedite the disposal of writ petitions. It facilitates speedy access to the case documents and has an overall positive impact on the process of filing and managing the writ petition. As a result of the use of SUPACE, people will not spend so much time waiting for their petitions to be processed and thus arrive at justice.

In what ways does the e-SCR enable the general public to access Supreme Court judgments?

The e-SCR refers to the facility through which people can find the Supreme Court judgments/orders and similar other related materials with the help of the internet. It enables the members of the public to be abreast of, and be in a position to easily comprehend, certain decisions that the court has made. It prevents people from knowing the legal consequences that may concern them and enhances the community’s confidence in the legal procedure by providing information on the court judgments.

References 

https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=basic%20structure%20doctrine 

https://cleartax.in/s/writs

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/writ-of-habeas-corpus.html

https://study.com/academy/lesson/writ-of-mandamus-definition-example.html

https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/administrative-law/writ-of-mandamus/13992/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1929401#:~:text=Quo%20warranto%20means%3A%20%E2%80%9Cby%20what,order%20to%20determine%20the%20right

https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.2139%2Fssrn.1929401

https://www.myadvo.in/blog/how-to-file-writ-petition-in-court/

https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/Legal-Formats/writ-petition-seeking-writ-of-prohibition-from-high-court-article-226-format-download.html

https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/administrative-law/the-writ-of-prohibition/14004/#comments

https://www.ilms.academy/blog//what-is-writ-jurisdiction-of-the-court

https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/article-32-of-indian-constitution-1605699265-1

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/article-32-and-supreme-court-fundamental-rights-7055040/

https://syskool.com/writ-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-and-2/

https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/comparison-of-the-writ-jurisdiction-of-the-supreme-court-with-that-of-high-courts-under-the-indian-constitution/115309

https://www.lawcolumn.in/writ-jurisdiction-of-the-supreme-court-and-high-court-comparison/

https://xpertslegal.com/blog/the-concept-of-writ-petition-in-india/ 

https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/EXISTENCE-OF-ALTERNATIVE-REMEDY-AS-AN-OBSTACLE-FOR-AVAILING-WRIT-JURISDICTION 

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/limitationact1963/28.php?Title=The%20Limitation%20Act,%201963&STitle=Writ%20jurisdiction%20and%20the%20bar%20of%20limitation#:~:text=%2D%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20held1,by%20a%20specific%20statutory%20provision2.  

https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Role-and-Future-of-Legal-Technology-in-the-Indian-Judicial-System#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20benefits%20of,insights%2C%20and%20improved%20case%20management. 

https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdiction-of-supreme-court/#:~:text=The%20primary%20purpose%20of%20public,behalf%20of%20society%20at%20large. 

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack