Mandamus and Certiorari: A comparative study

Mandamus and Certiorari: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Both Mandamus and Certiorari are extraordinary writs issued by courts under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) of the Indian Constitution to ensure administrative accountability and prevent misuse of power by public authorities.

2. Definition and Purpose

WritDefinitionPurpose
MandamusA command issued by a court to a public authority or official to perform a public or statutory duty which they have failed or refused to perform.To compel performance of a mandatory public duty.
CertiorariA writ issued by a higher court to quash or annul the decision/order of a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority on grounds of illegality or excess of jurisdiction.To quash illegal or ultra vires orders passed by inferior bodies.

3. Nature of the Writs

AspectMandamusCertiorari
FunctionMandatory – compels action.Quashing – annuls or sets aside orders.
ObjectTo enforce performance of duty.To correct illegality or jurisdictional error.
Issued AgainstPublic officials, administrative bodies.Courts, tribunals, administrative authorities.
When IssuedWhen a public authority neglects or refuses to perform a duty.When an inferior body acts beyond jurisdiction or illegally.
EffectCommands performance of a duty.Quashes or nullifies invalid decisions.

4. Scope and Limitations

Mandamus cannot be issued to direct performance of a private duty or discretionary act.

Certiorari is generally used to correct errors of jurisdiction or procedural defects but not mere errors of law or fact.

5. Relevant Case Laws

Case 1: Union of India v. H.C. Basappa (1962) — Mandamus

Facts: Petition to compel the government to appoint a person who was eligible.

Held: Mandamus can be issued to enforce a statutory duty that is clear, mandatory, and specific.

Significance: Mandamus is a tool to enforce performance of public duties.

Case 2: K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1962) — Certiorari

Facts: A lower tribunal passed an order without jurisdiction.

Held: Certiorari can be issued to quash orders passed without jurisdiction.

Significance: Certiorari corrects jurisdictional errors and prevents abuse of power.

Case 3: Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (1987) — Mandamus

Facts: Public authority refused to implement a government scheme.

Held: Mandamus was issued to direct the authority to carry out its statutory obligations.

Significance: Reinforced mandamus as a remedy against administrative inaction.

Case 4: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — Certiorari (Judicial Review)

Facts: Passport was impounded without procedure.

Held: Certiorari was used to quash the order as violative of natural justice.

Significance: Expanded certiorari to cover violation of fundamental rights and procedural fairness.

Case 5: Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (1969) — Mandamus and Certiorari

Facts: Writ petitions for both enforcement of duty and quashing illegal orders.

Held: Explained distinction between mandamus and certiorari; mandamus compels action, certiorari quashes illegal orders.

Significance: Clarified the proper use of each writ.

6. Summary Table: Mandamus vs Certiorari

ParameterMandamusCertiorari
MeaningCommand to perform dutyOrder to quash illegal action
PurposeTo enforce performance of public dutyTo correct jurisdictional error
Against WhomPublic authorities, officialsInferior courts, tribunals, administrative bodies
NatureMandatoryQuashing
When IssuedWhen duty is neglected or refusedWhen decision is without jurisdiction or illegal
EffectCommands to actNullifies or sets aside order
Example CaseUnion of India v. H.C. BasappaK.K. Verma v. Union of India

7. Conclusion

Mandamus is a proactive writ compelling a public authority to perform a duty.

Certiorari is a corrective writ annulling decisions made in excess of jurisdiction or unlawfully.

Both are essential constitutional remedies to ensure administrative accountability and protect citizens from arbitrariness.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments