Writ of Certiorari in Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution establishes a robust framework to safeguard fundamental rights and ensure that every individual is treated fairly under the rule of law. One of the most effective tools to achieve this is the system of writs, empowering the higher judiciary to oversee and rectify actions taken by subordinate authorities. Among the five writs enumerated under Articles 32 and 226, the writ of certiorari stands out as a crucial mechanism to correct judicial overreach, jurisdictional errors, and violations of natural justice.

What is the Writ of Certiorari?

The term “certiorari” originates from the Latin phrase meaning “to be fully informed.” It is a judicial remedy used by superior courts, such as the Supreme Court and High Courts, to supervise the decisions of inferior courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies. The writ is primarily corrective, aiming to quash orders that have been passed:

• Without jurisdiction,
• In excess of jurisdiction, or
• In violation of the principles of natural justice.

Unlike an appeal, which re-examines the facts and evidence of a case, certiorari focuses on errors of law or jurisdiction. Its purpose is not to rehear a matter but to ensure that the lower authority acted within the legal bounds and followed due process.

Constitutional Basis of Writ of Certiorari?

Articles 32 and 226

The writ of certiorari can be invoked under two articles of the Indian Constitution:

1. Article 32: Allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Certiorari under this article is limited to cases where a fundamental right has been violated.
2. Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and “for any other purpose.” This broader jurisdiction makes High Courts a vital venue for seeking certiorari.

Discretionary Nature

The issuance of certiorari is not automatic but lies at the discretion of the court. It is granted only when the petitioner establishes substantial grounds such as jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or violations of natural justice.

What are the Grounds for Issuing a Writ of Certiorari?

The writ of certiorari is issued under specific circumstances:

Jurisdictional Errors

A fundamental ground for issuing certiorari is when a subordinate authority acts:

• Without Jurisdiction: If the court or tribunal lacks the legal authority to decide a matter, its decision can be nullified.
• Beyond Its Jurisdiction: When an authority oversteps its prescribed powers, certiorari can rectify such overreach.
• On an Incorrect Assumption of Jurisdiction: If jurisdiction is assumed based on erroneous facts or legal interpretations, it becomes a valid ground for this writ.

For example, if a tribunal adjudicates a matter that is explicitly excluded from its scope under the law, the decision can be quashed through certiorari.

In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque (1954), an election tribunal decided on a matter outside its legal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court issued certiorari to quash the tribunal’s decision, asserting that jurisdictional overreach cannot be tolerated.

Violation of Natural Justice

The principles of natural justice are fundamental to fair adjudication. They include:

• Right to a Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem): All parties must be given an opportunity to present their case.
• Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua): The adjudicator must be impartial.

Certiorari is invoked when an order violates these principles, such as when a decision is made without giving one party a chance to be heard or when the adjudicator has a personal interest in the case. Such violations compromise the fairness and legitimacy of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

In Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (a UK case often cited in Indian jurisprudence), the dismissal of a police officer without giving him a chance to defend himself was found to violate natural justice. Certiorari was issued to quash the order.

In India, similar principles apply, and orders violating these norms are subject to correction.

Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record

Certiorari is also issued to correct blatant errors of law that are evident from the record without requiring detailed examination of evidence. Examples include:

• Misinterpretation of legal provisions.
• Misapplication of legal principles.

An error of law must be significant and obvious to qualify. For instance, if a tribunal applies a statute incorrectly or fails to follow binding precedents, its decision may be quashed.

In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964), the tribunal’s decision on a transport permit was challenged for legal misinterpretations. The Supreme Court clarified that certiorari addresses apparent errors of law, not factual disputes unless they impact jurisdiction.

Fraud, Collusion, or Corruption

Judicial integrity is paramount. Decisions tainted by fraud, collusion, or corruption undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary and warrant intervention. Examples include:

• Decisions are based on manipulated evidence.
• Collusion between parties to secure a favourable outcome.
• Corruption influences the adjudicator’s decision.

Such misconduct not only affects the case at hand but also erodes public trust in the legal system. Certiorari is an essential tool to rectify such injustices and maintain judicial credibility.

In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968), fraudulent misrepresentation in a tax assessment led to certiorari being invoked. Fraudulent actions of the subordinate authority invalidated the decision, and the superior court intervened to maintain justice.

Conditions for Issuance of Writ of Certiorari

For the writ of certiorari to be granted, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. Existence of a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Body: Certiorari applies only to bodies vested with judicial functions, not to purely administrative authorities (though this distinction has evolved over time).
2. Duty to Act Judiciously: The authority must have a duty to make decisions after hearing both parties and considering evidence judiciously.
3. Substantial Legal Errors: There must be clear evidence of jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or violations of natural justice.

Scope and Limitations of Writ of Certiorari

Scope

The writ of certiorari extends to:

• Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies,
• Tribunals,
• Certain administrative actions, if they involve a duty to act judiciously.

Limitations

• Factual Errors: Certiorari does not address mere errors of fact unless they result in jurisdictional overreach.
• Administrative Actions: Purely administrative decisions are generally not subject to certiorari, though exceptions exist.
• Discretionary Tool: The court has the discretion to deny the writ even if the grounds are met, based on the circumstances of the case.

Procedure for Filing a Writ of Certiorari

The process of filing a writ petition for certiorari involves the following steps:

1. Engaging a Lawyer: The petitioner consults a legal professional and provides all relevant documents.
2. Drafting the Petition: The lawyer drafts a petition outlining the jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or natural justice violation.
3. Filing the Petition: The petition is filed in the appropriate court, accompanied by supporting documents.
4. Court Proceedings: The court issues notices to the parties, hears arguments, and delivers its judgment.

No specific time limit is prescribed for filing a writ petition, but it must be done within a reasonable period after the alleged violation.

Recent Developments

M/S Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. (2024)

Facts: The petitioner challenged a penalty order under the CGST Act due to technical issues with the e-Way Bill portal. 

Held: The Allahabad High Court emphasised that certiorari is discretionary and issued only in cases involving substantial errors. The penalty order was quashed due to procedural shortcomings.

Conclusion

The writ of certiorari is a cornerstone of judicial review under the Indian Constitution. It empowers superior courts to ensure that inferior courts and tribunals operate within their legal boundaries and adhere to the principles of natural justice. By addressing jurisdictional errors, legal irregularities, and procedural lapses, certiorari upholds the rule of law and prevents abuse of power.

However, the discretionary nature of certiorari underscores the responsibility of the judiciary to balance individual rights with institutional efficiency. As governance and legal frameworks evolve, the writ of certiorari will continue to adapt, reinforcing its role as a guardian of justice in India’s constitutional framework.