Prohibition as a constitutional writ
Prohibition as a Constitutional Writ: Overview
Definition:
Prohibition is a writ issued by a superior court to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body, directing it to stop proceedings in a case where it is acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Purpose:
To prevent an inferior court or tribunal from acting beyond its legal authority and to protect the superior court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
Scope:
Prohibition is preventive—it intervenes before the illegal act is done or during the proceedings to stop further unlawful action.
Distinction from Certiorari:
Prohibition prevents unlawful proceedings.
Certiorari quashes or nullifies decisions/orders after they have been made.
Constitutional Basis:
Under constitutions modeled after the English system (like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), prohibition is an established writ power typically exercised by the High Courts or Supreme Courts.
Grounds for Issuing Prohibition
The lower court/tribunal has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.
The tribunal is acting in excess or abuse of jurisdiction.
The proceedings violate fundamental principles of natural justice.
The body is acting in violation of statutory provisions governing its powers.
The authority is acting coram non judice (in the absence of jurisdiction).
Important Case Law on Prohibition
1. R v. Hurd (1900) 2 QB 36 (UK)
Significance:
One of the earliest articulations of prohibition’s scope.
Held that prohibition is justified if the inferior tribunal is acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Emphasized that prohibition safeguards the rule of law by restraining unlawful exercise of judicial power.
2. K.K Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 549 (India)
Significance:
The Supreme Court of India issued prohibition to prevent a tribunal from proceeding on a matter outside its statutory jurisdiction.
Affirmed prohibition as a remedy to ensure administrative and judicial authorities do not exceed their legal powers.
Established that prohibition can be issued even if there is no alternate remedy available.
3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (1996) 5 SCC 554 (India)
Significance:
The Supreme Court clarified that prohibition is not granted as a matter of course.
It must be shown that the lower court or tribunal is acting without jurisdiction or illegally.
The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of writ of prohibition.
4. State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1965 SC 745 (India)
Significance:
The Court held that prohibition is an effective remedy to prevent jurisdictional errors.
Also observed that where there is a plain and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, prohibition must be granted to protect the legal order.
5. D.P. Chadha v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1025 (India)
Significance:
The Supreme Court used prohibition to stop an unconstitutional action by a legislative authority exercising judicial functions.
The case emphasized the writ’s role in upholding constitutional limits on bodies acting beyond their powers.
6. Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh, 1997 BLD 269 (Bangladesh)
Significance:
The High Court Division of Bangladesh issued prohibition against a government authority conducting proceedings beyond its jurisdiction.
Reinforced the writ’s preventive character in administrative law.
Demonstrated application of prohibition to administrative bodies beyond courts.
7. Md. Nurul Islam v. Government of Bangladesh, 1995 BLD 99 (Bangladesh)
Significance:
The writ of prohibition was issued against a tribunal acting in violation of principles of natural justice.
Showed that prohibition can also be used to prevent violations of procedural fairness in judicial/administrative processes.
Summary of Principles
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature | Preventive writ |
| Purpose | To stop proceedings in excess of jurisdiction |
| Issued by | High Courts, Supreme Courts |
| Grounds | Lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice |
| Effect | Stays/quashes ongoing illegal proceedings |
| Difference from Certiorari | Prohibition prevents; certiorari nullifies |
Practical Application
Prohibition is commonly used to restrain:
Lower courts trying to hear matters they have no jurisdiction over.
Tribunals or administrative bodies exceeding statutory limits.
Cases where natural justice is denied or statutory procedure is not followed.
The writ helps maintain the hierarchy and integrity of the judicial system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments