Writ of prohibition in administrative law
Writ of Prohibition
I. What is the Writ of Prohibition?
The Writ of Prohibition is a judicial order issued by a higher court to a lower court, tribunal, or authority, directing it to stop proceedings in a matter where it has no jurisdiction or is about to act in excess of its jurisdiction.
II. Purpose of the Writ of Prohibition
To prevent a lower court or authority from exceeding its jurisdiction.
To stop the abuse or misuse of power.
To protect the rights of parties from decisions of a forum that is not competent to hear a case.
It is a preventive remedy (issued before or during proceedings, not after a decision).
III. Grounds for Issuing the Writ of Prohibition
Lack of jurisdiction: When the lower authority has no jurisdiction to try the case.
Excess of jurisdiction: When the authority acts beyond its legal power.
Violation of principles of natural justice.
Where proceedings are unfair or illegal.
IV. Characteristics of the Writ of Prohibition
Issued only against inferior courts or tribunals, not against administrative authorities in general.
Preventive: It stops action before a judgment.
Discretionary: Courts decide whether to issue it based on the facts.
V. Important Case Laws on Writ of Prohibition
1. R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981 AIR 1115)
Facts:
An inquiry commission set up under certain statutory powers started inquiry in a matter that was not within its jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether the higher court can issue a writ of prohibition to restrain the commission from proceeding.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a writ of prohibition can be issued to restrain a statutory authority or tribunal from acting without or in excess of jurisdiction. The writ is a preventive remedy to ensure legality and fairness.
Principle:
The writ of prohibition is valid where the tribunal or authority acts beyond jurisdiction or exercises power illegally.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969 AIR 150)
Facts:
A selection committee included a member who had a conflict of interest.
Issue:
Whether the composition of the committee violated the principles of natural justice and whether the court can intervene by writ.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition to stop the inquiry because the authority acted in breach of natural justice.
Principle:
Writ of prohibition is a remedy to prevent tribunals from acting in violation of natural justice or procedural fairness.
3. Lok Prahari v. State of U.P. (1996 AIR 2119)
Facts:
A public authority initiated proceedings against the petitioner without jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether the High Court could issue a writ of prohibition to stop such proceedings.
Held:
The Court ruled that when a tribunal or authority acts beyond its jurisdiction or the proceedings are unfair, a writ of prohibition can be issued.
Principle:
Courts protect citizens by restraining unauthorized proceedings through prohibition.
4. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010 AIR SCW 5861)
Facts:
An administrative authority conducted proceedings without jurisdiction and violated due process.
Issue:
Whether the Supreme Court can issue a writ of prohibition.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that writ of prohibition is an effective remedy to stop proceedings beyond jurisdiction and to uphold rule of law.
Principle:
Prohibition safeguards against excess and abuse of power by inferior authorities.
5. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. v. The Workmen (1977 AIR 340)
Facts:
A labor tribunal entertained a dispute that did not fall under its jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether the court could issue prohibition to stop the tribunal from proceeding.
Held:
The Court issued the writ, stating that tribunals must act within jurisdiction; otherwise, their actions are void and subject to prohibition.
Principle:
The writ prevents judicial or quasi-judicial bodies from assuming jurisdiction they do not have.
VI. Summary Table
| Case | Key Point | Principle of Prohibition |
|---|---|---|
| R.K. Garg v. Union of India | Tribunal acting beyond jurisdiction | Prohibition stops excess jurisdiction |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | Breach of natural justice by authority | Prohibition prevents unfair proceedings |
| Lok Prahari v. State of U.P. | Proceedings without jurisdiction | Prohibition protects against unauthorized action |
| Union of India v. R. Gandhi | Violation of due process | Prohibition enforces rule of law and jurisdiction |
| Gujarat State Fertilizers v. Workmen | Tribunal exceeds jurisdiction | Prohibition restrains unlawful jurisdiction |
VII. Conclusion
The Writ of Prohibition is a vital judicial tool in administrative law. It functions as a protective shield against unlawful exercise of power by inferior courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies. By issuing this writ, courts ensure that these bodies do not act outside their jurisdiction, maintain fairness, and uphold the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments