The High Court stands as the apex judicial authority at the State level, entrusted with the vital role of interpreting laws, protecting fundamental rights, and upholding the rule of law. It serves as the highest court of appeal within the State and ensures the independence of the judiciary as part of India’s single integrated judicial system.
About the High Court
The High Court is the highest court of appeal in a State under the integrated judicial system of India.
It acts as:
- The highest court of appeal in the State,
- The guarantor of Fundamental Rights,
- The guardian and interpreter of the Constitution,
The protector of citizens against executive and legislative excesses.
Indian Judiciary: Structure
Inspired by the Government of India Act, 1935, the Indian Constitution established a single integrated judicial system comprising three tiers:
Level | Judicial Body | Jurisdiction |
Apex | Supreme Court of India | Entire country |
Middle | High Courts | States & Union Territories |
Lower | Subordinate Courts | Districts & Local areas |
Thus, there is one system of courts enforcing both Central and State laws.
Constitutional Provisions
Article Range | Part of Constitution | Subject |
Articles 214 – 231 | Part VI | Provisions relating to High Courts in the States |
These provisions deal with:
- Organization of High Courts
- Independence and powers
- Jurisdiction and procedures
- Relationship with subordinate courts
Both Parliament and State Legislatures can regulate aspects related to High Courts under these provisions.
Territorial Jurisdiction
- Normally, each State has its own High Court.
- However, under the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956, Parliament can:
- Establish a common High Court for two or more States, or
- For two or more States and a Union Territory.
Examples:
- Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh share a common High Court.
- The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court is co-terminus with its State or Union Territory.
- Parliament may extend or exclude a High Court’s jurisdiction over a Union Territory.
Composition of High Courts
- Every High Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may determine.
- The strength is decided by the President based on the workload and pendency in that High Court.
Appointment of Judges
Chief Justice of a High Court
Appointed by the President, after consultation with:
- The Governor of the concerned State, and
- The Chief Justice of India.
Other Judges of a High Court
Appointed by the President after consultation with:
- The Governor of the State,
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI), and
- The Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
In case of a common High Court, the Governors of all States concerned are consulted.
As per Judicial Pronouncements:
- Second Judges Case (1993): Consultation with the CJI means concurrence; CJI’s advice is binding on the President.
- Third Judges Case (1998): CJI must consult a collegium of two senior-most judges before making recommendations.
Qualifications of High Court Judges
A person must:
- Be a citizen of India, and
- Have either:
- Held a judicial office in India for 10 years, or
- Been an advocate of a High Court (or successive High Courts) for 10 years.
Note:
- There is no provision for appointing a distinguished jurist (unlike Supreme Court).
- There is no minimum age requirement.
Oath and Affirmation
Administered by the Governor of the State (or a person appointed by him).
The judge swears:
- True faith and allegiance to the Constitution,
- To uphold sovereignty and integrity of India,
- To perform duties without fear or favor,
- To uphold the Constitution and the law.
Salaries, Allowances & Tenure
Aspect | Provision |
Salary & Allowances | Determined by Parliament; cannot be reduced post-appointment (except during Financial Emergency). |
Tenure | Until the age of 62 years. |
Resignation | To the President of India. |
Removal | By the President on the recommendation of Parliament (same as Supreme Court judges). |
Transfer | By the President, after consultation with the CJI. |
Removal of High Court Judges
- Governed by the Judges Enquiry Act, 1968.
- Grounds:
- Proved misbehaviour, or
- Incapacity.
- Procedure:
- A motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
- Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject.
- If admitted, a three-member committee investigates:
- Chief Justice of India or a SC judge,
- Chief Justice of a High Court,
- A distinguished jurist.
- If found guilty → Motion passed by both Houses with special majority.
- Address sent to the President → Judge removed.
No High Court judge has been impeached so far.
Transfer of Judges
- Done by President, after consultation with the CJI.
- As per Third Judges Case (1998), CJI must consult:
- Four senior-most SC judges, and
- Chief Justices of the two High Courts concerned.
Acting, Additional & Retired Judges
| Type | Appointed By | Purpose | Duration / Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acting Chief Justice | President | When office of Chief Justice is vacant or CJ is absent/unable. | Till permanent CJ resumes. |
| Acting Judge | President | To act temporarily when a judge is absent or acting as CJ. | Till permanent judge resumes. |
| Additional Judge | President | To handle increased workload or arrears. | Not exceeding 2 years. |
| Retired Judge | Chief Justice (with President’s consent) | To act temporarily after retirement. | Enjoys same powers and privileges. |
Jurisdiction & Powers of High Courts
High Courts derive their powers from:
- Constitutional provisions (Art. 214–231)
- Letters Patent,
- Acts of Parliament & State Legislatures,
Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, etc.
Classification of Powers:
- Original Jurisdiction
- Writ Jurisdiction (Art. 226)
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- Supervisory Jurisdiction (Art. 227)
- Control over Subordinate Courts
- Court of Record
- Judicial Review
Original Jurisdiction
- Election disputes of Parliament/State Legislature members.
- Revenue matters or acts done in revenue collection.
- Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- Transfer of cases from subordinate courts involving constitutional interpretation.
- Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Delhi High Courts have original civil jurisdiction in higher-value cases.
Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226)
- Power to issue writs for:
- Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and
- Enforcement of any other legal right.
- Concurrent with Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction (Art. 32), but wider in scope.
- Can issue all five writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto.
Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Matters:
- First Appeals: Against decisions of district/subordinate courts — on facts and law.
- Second Appeals: Only on questions of law.
- Intra-court appeals possible in some High Courts.
- Appeals from tribunals also lie to the High Court.
Criminal Matters:
- Appeals against Sessions Court judgments awarding imprisonment > 7 years.
- Death sentences require High Court confirmation before execution.
Supervisory Jurisdiction (Article 227)
- Power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals (except military courts).
- Includes administrative and judicial superintendence.
- Can act suo motu.
Control over Subordinate Courts
- Consulted by Governor for appointment/promotion of district judges.
- Handles posting, transfers, leave, and disciplinary control of subordinate judiciary.
- Can withdraw cases involving substantial constitutional questions.
- Decisions are binding on subordinate courts.
Court of Record
- Judgments are permanent legal records with evidentiary value.
- Power to punish for contempt (of itself and subordinate courts).
- May review its own judgments (though not expressly provided in Constitution).
Judicial Review
- Can examine constitutionality of legislative and executive actions of both Centre and States.
- Can declare them ultra vires, null and void, if found unconstitutional.
Independence of High Courts
Safeguarded by:
- Collegium-based Appointment process.
- Security of tenure.
- Fixed service conditions.
- Charged expenditure on Consolidated Fund.
- Non-discussable conduct in Legislature.
- Post-retirement restrictions (cannot plead in lower courts).
- Power to punish for contempt.
- Autonomy in staff appointments.
- Protection of jurisdiction from legislative curtailment.
Contempt of Courts (1971 Act)
Type | Definition | Examples |
Civil Contempt | Wilful disobedience of any judgment, order, or undertaking given to a court. | Ignoring a stay order issued by the court. |
Criminal Contempt | Any act/publication that scandalizes the court, prejudices proceedings, or obstructs justice. | Publishing materials influencing ongoing cases. |
Conclusion
The High Court symbolizes the spirit of justice, constitutionalism, and independence at the State level. With its broad jurisdiction and constitutional powers, it serves as the protector of citizens’ rights and pillar of federal judicial integrity. As India’s democracy matures, the High Court’s role remains indispensable in upholding the rule of law and ensuring balance between State authority and individual liberty.
Judicial Review in India
Meaning of Judicial Review
Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Union and State governments.
If any law or action is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the courts have the power to declare it null and void.
👉 In simple terms, Judicial Review ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and that every organ of government acts within its prescribed limits.
Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review
Judicial Review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it is firmly embedded through several Articles that empower courts to enforce constitutional supremacy.
The key articles forming the constitutional basis are:
Article | Provision / Scope |
Article 13 | Declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be void. Forms the backbone of Judicial Review. |
Article 32 | Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. (Heart of Judicial Review) |
Article 226 | Empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. |
Article 131, 136, 143 | Provide the Supreme Court jurisdiction in disputes between governments, appellate jurisdiction, and advisory powers — all aiding review of constitutional questions. |
Articles 245 & 246 | Define legislative competence of Union and States; courts review whether laws are within respective jurisdictions. |
Article 368 | Constitutional amendments themselves are subject to judicial review (as clarified in Kesavananda Bharati case). |
Objectives of Judicial Review
- To uphold the supremacy of the Constitution
Ensures that no organ of the state acts contrary to the constitutional provisions. - To maintain separation of powers
Prevents the legislature and executive from exceeding their powers or encroaching upon each other. - To protect Fundamental Rights
Safeguards the liberties of citizens by invalidating arbitrary or unjust laws. - To ensure rule of law
Makes sure that every decision of the government is subject to the Constitution and the law. - To prevent misuse of power
Acts as a check on administrative discretion and executive arbitrariness.
Scope of Judicial Review
Judicial Review in India extends to three broad areas:
Type of Review | Explanation |
1. Judicial Review of Legislative Actions | Courts can examine laws made by Parliament or State Legislatures and declare them unconstitutional if they violate Fundamental Rights or exceed legislative competence. |
2. Judicial Review of Executive Actions | Courts review administrative and executive decisions to ensure they are not arbitrary, unreasonable, or ultra vires (beyond legal authority). |
3. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments | Through landmark judgments, courts have held that even constitutional amendments are subject to review if they damage the Basic Structure of the Constitution. |
Landmark Judgments Establishing Judicial Review
Case | Year | Key Principle Laid Down |
Marbury v. Madison (U.S.) | 1803 | Origin of Judicial Review in modern constitutional law. |
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras | 1950 | Early narrow interpretation of Fundamental Rights (later expanded). |
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India | 1951 | Held that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights. (Later overruled) |
Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Denied Parliament the power to amend Fundamental Rights. |
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine — Parliament cannot alter the basic features of the Constitution. |
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Judicial Review declared part of the Basic Structure itself. |
Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | Reaffirmed balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles; limited Parliament’s amending power. |
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | 1997 | Declared that power of Judicial Review of High Courts and Supreme Court is part of the Basic Structure and cannot be taken away even by constitutional amendment. |
Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach
| Concept | Meaning | Nature |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Reviewing constitutionality of laws and actions within the boundaries of the Constitution. | Legitimate and constitutional power. |
| Judicial Activism | Judiciary proactively interpreting the law to expand rights or fill legislative gaps. | Progressive but may blur separation of powers. |
| Judicial Overreach | When judiciary crosses its constitutional limits and interferes in legislative or executive domains. | Undesirable — violates separation of powers. |
Limitations on Judicial Review
- Doctrine of Separation of Powers – Judiciary cannot assume the role of legislature or executive.
- Parliamentary Privilege – Internal proceedings of legislatures are largely immune from judicial scrutiny.
- Political Questions Doctrine – Courts avoid questions that are purely political in nature.
- Limited by Constitutional Amendments – Though courts can review them, frequent amendments may restrict judicial authority.
- Delay and backlog – Excessive litigation and judicial workload reduce effective review capacity.
Importance of Judicial Review in Indian Democracy
- Guardian of the Constitution – Ensures supremacy of the Constitution over all organs.
- Protector of Fundamental Rights – Provides remedy against legislative or executive excesses.
- Instrument of checks and balances – Maintains equilibrium among the three organs.
- Ensures constitutional morality and governance accountability.
Criticisms of Judicial Review
- Unelected judges overruling elected legislature – may seem undemocratic.
- Subjectivity of judicial interpretation – different benches can give divergent views.
- Judicial delays – timely enforcement sometimes missing.
- Possibility of judicial overreach – courts sometimes issue directives beyond their purview.
Conclusion
Judicial Review is the cornerstone of the Indian constitutional system.
It ensures that constitutional supremacy prevails over parliamentary sovereignty.
While it must not be confused with judicial activism or overreach, it remains essential to protect democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.
“Judicial Review is the heart and soul of our Constitution — it keeps every organ within the Lakshman Rekha drawn by the Constitution.”
Writ Jurisdiction
What is Writ Jurisdiction?
Writ jurisdiction is the power of superior courts to issue certain extraordinary remedies called writs in order to enforce legal or constitutional rights, or to correct jurisdictional or procedural errors by inferior bodies.
In India, writs are available from:
- the Supreme Court under Article 32 (for enforcement of Fundamental Rights), and
- the High Courts under Article 226 (for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for enforcement of other legal rights).
Writs are prerogative/extraordinary remedies — they are not ordinary appeals but instruments to protect liberty, legality and jurisdictional sanctity.
Constitutional Basis
- Article 32 — Right to move Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for enforcement of Fundamental Rights; power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto). Dr. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
- Article 226 — Power of High Courts to issue writs, not only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for enforcement of any other legal right (wider than Article 32).
- Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over all subordinate courts and tribunals (also complementary to writ powers).
Who Can File Writ Petitions?
- Any person whose Fundamental Right or legal right is violated — locus standi is liberal in practice. High Courts can entertain petitions even from affected persons, public-spirited persons, NGOs, and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitioners.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): courts relaxed locus standi to allow concerned citizens or organizations to file in public interest where rights of the public at large or disadvantaged groups are affected.
- Supreme Court under Art. 32: Generally for Fundamental Rights; but the Court has been flexible in entertaining PILs that implicate F.R. or larger public interest.
Difference: Article 32 (Supreme Court) vs Article 226 (High Courts)
| Feature | Article 32 (Supreme Court) | Article 226 (High Courts) |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights only | Wider: Fundamental Rights + any other legal right |
| Who can be approached | Directly approach the Supreme Court | Approach the High Court (often more accessible) |
| Supervisory power | No supervisory power over High Courts (SC is apex) | Supervisory power under Article 227 over subordinate courts/tribunals |
| Discretion | Supreme Court can grant discretionary reliefs (e.g., intransigent cases) | High Court has wide discretionary power to provide reliefs |
| Remedies | Issues writs listed in Article 32 | Issues writs listed in Article 226 (and wider remedies) |
Practical Point: Writ petitions are more commonly filed in High Courts (Article 226) due to their wider scope and accessibility; Supreme Court Article 32 petitions are used when a Fundamental Right is primarily at stake or after exhausting High Court remedies (except in exceptional cases).
Practical point: Writ petitions are more commonly filed in High Courts (Article 226) because of their wider scope and accessibility; Supreme Court Articles 32 petitions are often brought where a Fundamental Right is primarily at stake or after exhausting High Court remedies (except in exceptional cases).
Nature and Purpose of Writs
- They are extraordinary, discretionary, and aimed at securing legality, protecting rights, and maintaining the constitutional balance.
- Two broad aims:
- Protect personal liberty and rights (e.g., Habeas Corpus, Mandamus).
- Maintain rule of law and correct jurisdictional errors (e.g., Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto).
The Five Writs — Full Explanation (one by one)
Habeas Corpus (Latin: “you may have the body”)
Meaning / Object:
A writ commanding the person who has detained another to produce the detained person before the court and justify the legality of detention. Primary aim is protection of personal liberty.
When issued:
- When a person is under illegal or unlawful detention — detention without lawful authority, detention contrary to procedure of law, detention beyond the period authorized, detention by private parties (rare), or when detention is for ulterior/illegal reasons.
- Court examines whether detention is lawful, in accordance with due process, and the detainee’s fundamental right to personal liberty (Article 21).
Who can file:
- The detained person (preferred), a relative, friend, or any person on his behalf — courts permit liberal locus standi.
Relief granted:
- Release of the detainee if detention is illegal; or
- Order to produce the detenue and remand lawfully if detention lawful; or
- Directions for remedial action (compensation, investigation).
Limitations / special circumstances:
- During a lawful proclamation of Emergency (historically contentious — ADM Jabalpur case), rights may be affected (note: post-Emergency jurisprudence and subsequent developments have curtailed arbitrary suspension).
- Preventive detention laws may be constitutionally valid if procedural safeguards are followed; habeas corpus challenges such preventive detention on substantive and procedural grounds.
Typical examples:
- Unlawful custody by police, executive detention under preventive detention orders lacking procedural compliance, detention without production before magistrate.
Mandamus (Latin: “we command”)
Meaning / Object:
- A writ commanding a public authority or official to perform a public or statutory duty which it/they have failed to perform. It is a positive writ — compels performance.
When issued:
- Where there is a clear legal right in the petitioner, a corresponding duty cast on respondent (statutory/public law duty), and no other adequate remedy is available.
- Not issued against private individuals (except when they perform public functions).
Who can file:
- Any person whose legal or statutory right has been denied due to the failure of public authority to act.
Relief granted:
- Direction to perform the statutory duty (e.g., issue license, hold inquiry, fill vacancy, publish results).
Limitations / non-availability:
Mandamus will not be issued if:
- The duty is discretionary and there is no legal right (only political or policy decision).
- The authority has judicial or quasi-judicial powers and has to exercise them with discretion — court will not usurp that discretion unless abused.
- An alternative statutory remedy exists (must be exhausted) — unless alternative remedy is inadequate or illusory.
Typical examples:
- Directing a public authority to issue a licence where the applicant satisfies legal conditions; directing a government to appoint a person where appointment is a legal right.
Prohibition
Meaning / Object:
A writ issued to prohibit a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority from continuing proceedings in excess of its jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice. It is a negative writ — restrains action.
When issued:
- When a lower forum is acting without jurisdiction, beyond jurisdiction, or in breach of principles of natural justice. Usually issued proactively to prevent miscarriage of justice (i.e., while proceedings are pending).
Who can file:
- Person facing or likely to face unauthorised proceedings before a lower court/tribunal.
Relief granted:
- Order restraining the lower authority from proceeding further.
Difference from Certiorari:
- Prohibition is issued to stop an inferior court from acting further (issued during proceedings).
- Certiorari is issued to quash what has already been decided (issued to quash order/judgment already passed).
Typical examples:
- Stopping a tribunal from deciding a matter outside its statutory jurisdiction or proceeding without hearing the affected party.
Certiorari (Latin: “to be certified”)
Meaning / Object:
- A writ issued by a superior court to quash the order, decision or proceedings of a lower court, tribunal, or authority on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, or violation of natural justice. Essentially corrective.
When issued:
- Where the inferior authority acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or committed error of law/violation of natural justice, or where the order is malafide.
Who can file:
- Person aggrieved by the order/judgment/award of a lower authority.
Relief granted:
- Quashing the order; remanding back for fresh decision; or compensatory/directional reliefs.
Grounds for issuance (common):
- Illegality, lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice (no hearing), error of law, malice, or violation of mandatory procedure.
Typical examples:
- Quashing a tribunal order passed without hearing, or a municipal authority’s order reached without jurisdiction.
Quo Warranto (Latin: “by what authority”)
Meaning / Object:
A writ questioning the legal right of a person to hold a public office. It asks: “By what authority are you holding this office?” It aims to prevent unlawful assumption of public office.
When issued:
- When a person is wrongfully occupying a public office to which he is not entitled — e.g., where election, appointment, or qualifications are invalid.
Who can file:
- Any person (public-spirited) can bring action; courts may entertain PILs where public office is involved. Sometimes the State is the proper party when the office is State-related.
Relief granted:
- Removal/displacement of the person wrongfully holding office; declaration that the office is vacant; order to hold fresh selection/election.
Limitations:
- Quo warranto is not ordinarily available against private offices or where there is a statutory remedy (must consider adequacy of existing remedy).
Typical examples:
- Challenging the authority of a person claiming to hold municipal office without valid election/appointment; removing someone who does not meet statutory qualifications.
Procedural Aspects & Remedies
- Writ petitions are generally summary in nature (not lengthy pleadings) but must disclose a viable legal cause and particulars.
- Courts may issue interim orders (stay, injunction), compensatory relief, or directions tailored to justice (e.g., re-investigation, fresh inquiry).
- Costs: Courts may impose costs where writ petitions are frivolous/abusive.
- Remedies are discretionary — even if legal violation exists, court uses discretion based on equity, alternative remedies, public interest, etc.
Limitations and Exceptions (Important for Exam)
- Alternative Remedy Rule: If an efficacious statutory or alternate remedy exists (appeal, revision), courts may refuse writ relief unless the remedy is inadequate or illusory.
- Discretionary Nature: Writs are discretionary — courts examine effect on public policy, administrative efficiency, and balance of convenience.
- Non-justiciable / Political Questions: Courts avoid matters purely political in nature (subject to broad judicial interpretation).
- Tribunals & Special Forums: Some statutes oust writ jurisdiction expressly or by necessary implication; however, Supreme Court has held that basic judicial review cannot be ousted and many such ousters are subject to scrutiny.
- During Emergency: Historically, writs can be affected during declarations of Emergency (controversial; exceptional jurisprudence).
- Sovereign functions: Acts of the State in sovereign domain (policy/contractual) are less amenable to writs unless rights or jurisdictional errors exist.
Scope of High Court’s Writ Power vis-à-vis Special Statutory Tribunals
- High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction over tribunals unless the statute grants exclusive and efficacious remedy by appeal and excludes writs — nonetheless, judicial review remains available on jurisdictional grounds, mala fides or breach of natural justice.
- The Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly protected the core power of judicial review, even where legislatures have attempted to curtail it indirectly.
Remedies Unique to Article 226 & “Other Powers”
- High Courts under Article 226 can issue a range of directions, orders or writs including injunctions, declarations and writs for enforcement of other legal rights which Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot grant (in theory).
- High Courts may combine writs with supervisory powers (Art. 227) to correct subordinate courts and tribunals.
Landmark Doctrinal Points
- Article 226 is wider than Article 32 — High Courts can protect legal rights beyond Fundamental Rights.
- Writ jurisdiction is a constitutional remedy and an essential component of the rule of law.
- PIL transformed access to writ remedies and broadened protection for disadvantaged groups; nevertheless PILs must not become instruments of frivolous activism.
- The basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda) and later cases have cemented courts’ power to review constitutional amendments and executive action via writs and judicial review.
Recent Trends & Practical Observations
- Courts use writs creatively in environmental, human rights, administrative and public interest matters (environmental protection, prison reforms, bonded labour, service law).
- Proactive judicial remedy vs judicial restraint debate persists — courts must balance remedying rights violations with not intruding unnecessarily into policy/administration.
- Writ petitions remain the most powerful tool for enforcing rights, but courts emphasise rule-of-law principles, procedural fairness and proportionality.
Summary
| Writ | Purpose | When Used | Who Files | Remedy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | Protect personal liberty | Illegal detention | Detainee / any person | Produce detainee; release |
| Mandamus | Compel public duty | Failure to perform statutory duty | Affected person | Direction to perform duty |
| Prohibition | Prevent jurisdictional error | Pending proceedings before inferior forum | Affected person | Stop proceedings |
| Certiorari | Quash orders / decisions | After order passed by inferior forum | Aggrieved person | Quash / annul order |
| Quo Warranto | Question authority to hold public office | Wrongful holding of public office | Any person / public-spirited | Remove person; declare vacancy |
Supreme Court of India - FAQs Answered
What is the role of the High Court in protecting Fundamental Rights?
The High Court plays a crucial role in safeguarding Fundamental Rights through its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, allowing it to enforce both fundamental and legal rights. It can issue writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto to ensure justice and uphold constitutional guarantees.
How are High Court judges appointed in India?
Judges of the High Court are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. This process follows the Collegium System, established through the Second and Third Judges Cases, ensuring judicial independence.
What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 gives the High Court broader powers to enforce Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. Thus, Article 226 has a wider scope, making High Courts more accessible for writ petitions.
What is Judicial Review and why is it important?
Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and constitutional amendments. It ensures constitutional supremacy, maintains the separation of powers, and protects citizens’ rights from arbitrary government action. It is considered part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
What are the five types of writs issued by High Courts and the Supreme Court?
The Constitution empowers courts to issue five writs:
- Habeas Corpus – against illegal detention
- Mandamus – to compel performance of a public duty
- Certiorari – to quash unlawful orders of lower courts/tribunals
- Prohibition – to stop lower courts from exceeding jurisdiction
- Quo Warranto – to challenge illegal occupation of a public office
These writs strengthen constitutional remedies and uphold the rule of law.
