With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements :

1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organization unless it is entrusted with a public duty.

2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.

3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct ?

The correct statements are 1 and 3 only.Key Points

• Mandamus will not lie against a private organization unless it is entrusted with a public duty:
  • This statement is correct. The writ of mandamus is issued by the court to compel a public authority to perform a duty they are obligated to perform. For a private organization, mandamus can only be issued if it is fulfilling a public duty.
• Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company:
  • This statement is incorrect. Mandamus can be issued to a government company because it is considered an instrumentality or agency of the state, and therefore, it falls within the definition of 'public authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
• Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto:
  • This statement is correct. The writ of quo warranto can be sought by any person to seek judicial review of the actions of a person or authority who is occupying a public office.
• Hence, the correct statements are 1 and 3 only.

Additional Information

• Writs are legal orders issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts in India to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.
• Article 32: Direct access to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• Article 226: Wider powers for the High Courts to issue writs, not just for Fundamental Rights.
• Differences: While the Supreme Court issues writs for Fundamental Rights enforcement only, High Courts can do so for other purposes as well.
•  Under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) of the Indian Constitution, five types of writs can be issued.

1. Habeas Corpus

• Meaning: "You may have the body."
• Purpose: To protect an individual's right to liberty and to challenge unlawful detention or imprisonment.
• Who can file: The detained person or anyone on their behalf.
• Key Points:
  • The court orders the detaining authority to present the detained person and justify the detention.
  • Ensures protection against illegal confinement.
• Not Applicable: In cases of lawful detention (e.g., preventive detention under a valid law).

2. Mandamus

• Meaning: "We Command."
• Purpose: To direct a public official, body, or lower court to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to perform.
• Key Points:
  • Issued when there is a failure to perform a mandatory duty.
  • Cannot be issued against a private individual or company.
  • Not applicable if the duty is discretionary, not mandatory.
• Examples: Directing a public university to declare examination results.

3. Prohibition

• Meaning: To "prohibit" or "forbid."
• Purpose: To stop a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting outside its authority.
• Key Points:
  • Issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court or tribunal.
  • Prevents the continuation of proceedings in cases where there is no jurisdiction.
• Timing: Issued before the final judgment in a case.

4. Certiorari

• Meaning: "To be certified."
• Purpose: To quash an order or decision of a lower court or tribunal that has exceeded its jurisdiction or violated principles of natural justice.
• Key Points:
  • Can be issued even after the final order or judgment.
  • Corrects errors of jurisdiction or procedural irregularities.
• Difference from Prohibition: Prohibition is preventive (issued before a decision), while certiorari is corrective (issued after a decision).

5. Quo Warranto

• Meaning: "By what authority."
• Purpose: To challenge the legality of a person's claim to a public office.
• Key Points:
  • Prevents the unlawful usurpation of a public office.
  • Applicable only to public offices, not private positions.
• Example: Challenging the appointment of an individual as a government officer who does not meet the eligibility criteria.