writ certiorari

Introduction

The writ of certiorari is a crucial judicial remedy that ensures the superior courts can review decisions made by lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies. This writ serves as a corrective measure, preventing errors of jurisdiction and ensuring fairness in judicial proceedings. In this article, we will explore the meaning, scope, application, and landmark judgments associated with certiorari.

Meaning and Scope of writ certiorari

The writ of certiorari is derived from the Latin word certiorare, meaning “to be informed.” It is a judicial order issued by a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal, requiring it to send the record of proceedings for review. The primary objective of this writ is to correct jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, and violations of principles of natural justice.

Essential Conditions for Issuance

A superior court will issue a writ of certiorari if:-

1. The lower court or tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
2. There has been a violation of natural justice (e.g., denial of a fair hearing).
3. There has been a fundamental error of law in the decision-making process.
4. The decision is unconstitutional or violates fundamental rights.

Also read :- judicial-review

Landmark Judgments on Writ of Certiorari

1. R. v. Electricity Commissioners (1924)

This English case laid the foundation for the writ of certiorari. The court held that certiorari could be issued when a public authority exceeded its jurisdiction. It emphasized that judicial review is necessary to prevent misuse of power.

2. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (1955 AIR 233)

This case established that the writ of certiorari can be issued when a judicial or quasi-judicial authority exceeds its jurisdiction or violates fundamental principles of justice. The ruling reinforced that writ jurisdiction is available even when alternative remedies exist, provided fundamental rights are at stake.

3. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959 AIR 308)

In this case, the Supreme Court quashed a government order because the Secretary of the Transport Department had acted both as an administrative and quasi-judicial authority. It ruled that such an overlap violated the principles of natural justice, making the decision ultra vires.

4. T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954 AIR 440)

The Supreme Court held that certiorari is issued to correct errors of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities. The court also emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the issuance of certiorari in cases of jurisdictional errors.

5. A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970 AIR 150)

The Supreme Court held that administrative authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions must follow natural justice principles. The writ of certiorari was granted to quash a biased selection process, reinforcing that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. 

6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (1958 AIR 86)

The Supreme Court observed that even if there is no right to appeal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if a lower court or tribunal has acted in violation of natural justice. This judgment expanded the scope of certiorari in preventing unfair administrative actions.

Application of Certiorari in India

Certiorari is a powerful tool under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to issue this writ to quash unlawful orders and ensure judicial accountability. High Courts primarily use this writ under to control lower courts and tribunals, while the Supreme Court issues it under Article 32 to enforce fundamental rights.

Key Features of Certiorari in India

1. It is both preventive and corrective, ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.
2. It applies to judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies.
3. It is not issued against purely legislative or executive actions.
4. It can be invoked even if an alternative remedy exists, in cases of jurisdictional errors.

Difference Between Certiorari and Other Writs

While certiorari quashes an illegal order, it differs from:

1. Prohibition: Prevents an authority from proceeding with an unlawful act.
2. Mandamus: Commands an authority to perform its duty.
3. Habeas Corpus: Ensures personal liberty.
4. Quo Warranto: Questions a person’s authority to hold a public office.

Conclusion

The writ of certiorari plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law by ensuring lower courts and tribunals function within their jurisdiction. Landmark judgments have shaped its application, making it an indispensable tool in administrative law. Through judicial review, certiorari safeguards individuals against arbitrary or erroneous decisions, reinforcing constitutional principles and protecting justice.

Also read :-

1. 1.  Writ-Of-Mandamus
   2. Doctrine-Of-Waiver-Indian-Constitution
   3. Doctrine-Of-Severability-With-Case-Laws