Remedies in judicial review – certiorari, prohibition, mandamus
Remedies in Judicial Review: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions, decisions, or orders of administrative authorities to ensure they comply with the law. If a decision is unlawful, courts can intervene using specific remedies.
1. Certiorari
Purpose: To quash or annul an order or decision of a lower court or administrative authority.
Use: When an authority acts beyond its jurisdiction (ultra vires), or commits an error of law.
Effect: The decision is declared void and set aside.
2. Prohibition
Purpose: To prevent a lower court or tribunal from proceeding with a case if it lacks jurisdiction.
Use: Issued before or during a proceeding to stop illegal or unauthorized action.
Effect: Stops the continuation of the illegal proceeding.
3. Mandamus
Purpose: To compel a public authority or official to perform a duty they are legally obligated to perform.
Use: When a public duty is neglected or refused.
Effect: Commands the authority to act as required by law.
Important Case Laws on Remedies in Judicial Review
1. Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Mohan Lal (1967) – Certiorari
Facts: The Electricity Board challenged a writ petition seeking to quash an order.
Holding: The Supreme Court reiterated that certiorari lies to quash orders passed without jurisdiction or contrary to law.
Significance: Established that certiorari is a corrective remedy to nullify illegal administrative acts.
2. K.K. Verma vs. Union of India (1963) – Prohibition
Facts: A tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction, and a writ of prohibition was sought.
Holding: The Court held that prohibition prevents continuation of unauthorized judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
Significance: Affirmed the role of prohibition as a preventive remedy in administrative law.
3. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Mandamus
Facts: Guidelines for preventing sexual harassment in workplaces were sought through mandamus.
Holding: The Supreme Court issued directions (guidelines) compelling authorities to ensure safe workplaces.
Significance: Demonstrated the use of mandamus to enforce fundamental rights and compel public authorities to act.
4. K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) – Certiorari and Mandamus
Facts: The case challenged government action on Aadhaar biometric data.
Holding: The Court issued directions safeguarding privacy (mandamus) and quashing unconstitutional provisions (certiorari).
Significance: Showed the combined use of remedies to protect constitutional rights.
5. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (1993) – Mandamus
Facts: The Court issued directions to uphold judicial independence.
Holding: Mandamus was used to enforce compliance by the government and ensure the functioning of independent judiciary.
Significance: Highlights mandamus as a tool to compel public authorities to uphold constitutional principles.
Summary
| Remedy | Purpose | When Used | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certiorari | Quash illegal decisions | After unlawful decision | Decision/order is set aside |
| Prohibition | Prevent unauthorized actions | To stop ongoing illegal action | Proceedings are stopped |
| Mandamus | Compel performance of duty | To enforce public duty | Authority is directed to act |
How to Use These Remedies
Check if the authority acted ultra vires (beyond power).
Identify if the act/decision violates the law or constitutional rights.
Decide if the remedy should be preventive (prohibition) or corrective (certiorari).
Use mandamus when a public duty is ignored or refused.
RELATED Blog
0 comments