Difference Between Writ of Prohibition and Certiorari

The Constitution of India safeguards the fundamental rights of its citizens through a detailed framework, empowering the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs under Articles 32 and 226, respectively. Among the writs provided—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition—the writs of Prohibition and Certiorari serve distinct yet complementary purposes. This article discusses the difference between Writ of Prohibition and Certiorari.

What Is a Writ?

A writ is a formal legal document issued by a judicial body, commanding the performance or cessation of a specific act. In the Indian legal framework, writs are instrumental in upholding the rule of law by ensuring that courts and public authorities act within their jurisdiction. Writs like Certiorari and Prohibition, in particular, serve as vital tools for judicial review.

What is Writ of Prohibition?

The Writ of Prohibition is issued by a superior court to a lower court or tribunal, instructing it to stop proceedings that exceed its jurisdiction. This writ ensures that subordinate courts do not act in a manner contrary to the law.

The primary objective of the Writ of Prohibition is prevention, ensuring that lower courts or quasi-judicial bodies refrain from exercising powers they do not legally possess. This writ is preventive in nature and maintains judicial discipline by preventing overreach.

The Writ of Prohibition is issued under specific circumstances:

1. Excess of Jurisdiction: When a lower court acts beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon it.
2. Absence of Jurisdiction: When a court lacks the authority to hear a case.
3. Violation of Natural Justice: When principles like the right to be heard are disregarded.
4. Fundamental Rights: When judicial proceedings infringe upon constitutional rights.

Key Features

• Timing: Issued during the pendency of proceedings.
• Nature: Preventive, ensuring no further unlawful actions are taken.
• Application: Limited to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not applicable to administrative bodies.

Important Case Laws

1. S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1274): This case established that the jurisdiction for granting a writ of Prohibition is supervisory and aims to prevent courts from overstepping their jurisdictional boundaries.
2. Radhey Shyam & Anr v. Chhabi Nath & Ors: The case extended the High Courts’ powers under Article 226 to issue the Writ of Prohibition, ensuring adherence to jurisdictional limits.

What is Writ of Certiorari?

The Writ of Certiorari is issued by a superior court to a lower court or tribunal to quash an order or decision made in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of the law. Unlike Prohibition, Certiorari is corrective in nature.

The Writ of Certiorari seeks to rectify errors of jurisdiction or law committed by lower courts. By quashing unlawful decisions, it ensures adherence to legal standards and the proper application of justice.

The Writ of Certiorari is applicable in the following scenarios:

1. Excess of Jurisdiction: When a lower court acts beyond its powers.
2. Error of Law: When a judicial decision is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.
3. Violation of Natural Justice: When procedural fairness is not observed.
4. Supervisory Jurisdiction: Ensures the legality of judicial proceedings.

Key Features

• Timing: Issued after a decision has been made.
• Nature: Corrective, addressing errors in judicial decisions.
• Application: Applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies; not used against administrative or executive authorities.

Important Case Laws

1. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233): The case outlined that Certiorari corrects jurisdictional errors and violations of natural justice.
2. Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others: This case emphasised that Certiorari addresses errors of law but does not interfere with factual findings.
3. Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar: Highlighted the significance of Certiorari in rectifying judicial overreach.

Key Differences Between Prohibition and Certiorari

The difference between Certiorari and Prohibition have been listed below:

Purpose

• Prohibition: The primary aim is to prevent lower courts from continuing proceedings that exceed their jurisdiction or violate the law. It is a preventive tool to maintain judicial order.
• Certiorari: The main purpose is to quash unlawful decisions already made by lower courts. It rectifies errors of law and jurisdiction after they occur.

Timing

• Prohibition: Issued during the pendency of proceedings in a lower court or tribunal. It halts the continuation of actions that are deemed unlawful.
• Certiorari: Issued after the conclusion of proceedings or after a decision has been delivered. It aims to nullify the effects of a wrongful judgement.

Nature

• Prohibition: Preventive in nature, ensuring that no further illegal actions are taken by the subordinate authority.
• Certiorari: Corrective in nature, rectifying errors that have already occurred in judicial decisions.

Application

• Prohibition: Directed at judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to stop them from exceeding their jurisdiction.
• Certiorari: Applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to annul erroneous decisions but not to administrative or executive authorities.

Scope

• Prohibition: Prevents courts from assuming jurisdiction they do not possess or acting beyond their lawful authority.
• Certiorari: Quashes decisions that involve jurisdictional errors, procedural violations, or errors of law.

Jurisdictional Supervision

• Prohibition: Supervises judicial bodies during ongoing proceedings to ensure compliance with jurisdictional limits.
• Certiorari: Reviews decisions after their delivery to ensure they conform to legal and procedural standards.

Suppose a subordinate court begins proceedings on a matter that falls outside its jurisdiction. In such a case:

• Prohibition: Prevents the subordinate court from proceeding further.
• Certiorari: If the subordinate court delivers a decision despite lacking jurisdiction, Certiorari can quash the decision.

In some cases, both writs may be applicable simultaneously. For instance, if a court begins proceedings unlawfully and delivers a partial judgement, Prohibition may halt further actions, while Certiorari may quash the existing judgement.

Overlapping and Combined Applications

While Prohibition and Certiorari have distinct purposes, there are scenarios where their applications overlap. For example, if a lower court issues a preliminary order without jurisdiction, Prohibition may stop further proceedings, while Certiorari may quash the initial order. Such combined applications ensure comprehensive judicial oversight.

Important Judicial Observations

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member

In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, the Supreme Court elaborated on the nature and scope of the Writ of Certiorari. The judgement emphasised that Certiorari is not an appellate remedy but a supervisory one, intended to correct jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice. The court held that the writ serves to ensure subordinate authorities remain within their legal bounds while upholding the constitutional framework.

Lady Dinbai Petit v. M.S. Noronha

Lady Dinbai Petit v. M.S. Noronha clarified the limitations of the Writ of Prohibition. The High Court concluded that Prohibition cannot be issued to prevent administrative or executive actions but is strictly limited to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It reinforced the principle that the writ must align with constitutional provisions to avoid misuse or overreach.

Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors

Initially, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors case redefined the scope of Prohibition under Article 226, allowing High Courts to issue the writ in broader circumstances. However, the judgement was later overruled to restrict its application, ensuring that Prohibition remains a remedy strictly for judicial oversight. This development marked a turning point in understanding the balance between judicial intervention and jurisdictional autonomy.

Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar

The Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar deliberated on the discretionary nature of writs like Prohibition and Certiorari. It observed that while these writs are vital for ensuring judicial accountability, they should be issued judiciously to avoid undue interference in subordinate judicial processes. The case underscored the principle that the presence of alternative remedies does not necessarily preclude the issuance of these writs, but it remains a significant consideration.

Role of Articles 32 and 226 in Issuing Writs

1. Article 32: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights.
2. Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and for other purposes within their territorial jurisdiction.
   • The writs of Certiorari and Prohibition serve as vital tools under Article 226, allowing High Courts to maintain judicial oversight over subordinate courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

Conclusion

The Writs of Prohibition and Certiorari play crucial roles in maintaining the sanctity of the judicial process. While Prohibition prevents judicial overreach by halting ongoing proceedings, Certiorari corrects jurisdictional and legal errors by quashing decisions already made. Together, these writs ensure adherence to legal principles, prevent misuse of power, and uphold the rule of law.

Understanding the distinctions and applications of these writs is essential for safeguarding the constitutional framework and ensuring justice in every case. By addressing both preventive and corrective aspects of judicial review, the Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition underscore the judiciary’s commitment to fairness, accountability, and legal precision.