Writs/PILs/SLPs

Legal Framework of Writs/PILs/SLPs in India

Writs

• Writs: Writs are official orders issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts that provide constitutional remedies for Indian citizens whose fundamental rights have been violated. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution outlines the constitutional remedies available to citizens, enabling them to approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are infringed upon. These articles grant the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs for the protection of these rights, while Article 226 empowers the High Courts to do the same. The writs available include Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition.
• Types of Writs in India: The Supreme Court and the High Court of India are the defenders of the fundamental rights of the citizens. For that, it has original and wide powers. It issues five kinds of writs for enforcing the fundamental rights of the citizens. The five types of writs are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto
  • Habeas Corpus: Habeas Corpus, meaning "To have the body," is a legal remedy aimed at protecting individuals from unlawful detention or custody. This writ ensures that a detained person is brought before the court, which examines the legality of their detention. If the detention is deemed arbitrary or without valid grounds, the court orders the person's release. At its core, this writ upholds the fundamental right to personal liberty. However, Habeas Corpus cannot be invoked if the arrest is carried out under a lawful and jurisdictionally valid order issued by a competent authority. This writ is unique in that it can be directed against both public officials and private individuals. The detained individual, their relatives, or friends can file a petition for its issuance.
    • Grounds for Issuance: The writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued under the following conditions:
      • Failure to present the detained individual before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
      • Detention under a law that is unconstitutional.
      • Arrest without any violation of legal provisions.
  • Mandamus: The term "mandamus" translates to "we command" and refers to a judicial writ issued by a court to compel a public authority to fulfill a duty it is legally bound to perform. An individual who has a legitimate legal right to demand the execution of such a duty, provided it is done in good faith, files this writ. Mandamus can be directed toward government bodies, public officials, lower courts, tribunals, and public corporations. It is typically used when a public authority either refuses to carry out its statutory obligations or completely neglects to act. However, this writ cannot be issued against private individuals, the President, Governors, or the Chief Justice.
    • Exceptions to Mandamus
      • Tasks that fall under non-statutory departmental responsibilities.
      • Duties that involve discretionary powers.
      • Issues concerning private rights.
      • Cases where issuing the writ would conflict with existing legal provisions.
      • Situations where an alternative legal remedy exists.
  • Certiorari: Certiorari, derived from the Latin term meaning "to certify," is a curative writ issued to address legal errors or jurisdictional overreach by lower courts or tribunals. It is invoked when a higher court, such as the Supreme Court or High Court, determines that a subordinate court or tribunal has acted beyond its authority or committed a significant legal error. In such cases, the higher court may either transfer the matter to itself or quash the order issued by the lower authority.
    • The writ of certiorari is typically issued under specific circumstances, including
      • When a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction or assumes jurisdiction where none exists.
      • When a subordinate court exceeds its jurisdiction by overstepping the legal boundaries established for it.
      • When there is a blatant disregard for the law or established rules of procedure by the subordinate court.
      • When the principles of natural justice are violated due to the absence of a prescribed procedure.
      • This writ serves as a critical tool to ensure that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies operate within the bounds of their authority and adhere to legal and procedural standards.
  • Quo Warranto: Quo Warranto, which translates to "by what authority or warrant," is a legal remedy employed by courts to prevent the misuse or unauthorized exercise of authority. Through this writ, the court demands that a public official justify their authority to hold a particular office. If the official fails to provide valid grounds, the court may suspend their authority. Importantly, this writ cannot be issued against private individuals.
    • Grounds for Issuance: The writ of Quo Warranto can be issued under the following circumstances:
      • When a person occupies a public office without legitimate authority.
      • When an individual is constitutionally disqualified from holding a particular office.
    • Essential Conditions
      • The office in question must be a public office.
      • The position should have a permanent or substantial character.
  • Prohibition: Prohibition, meaning "to forbid," is a writ issued to restrain judicial, quasi-judicial authorities, or tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction. Unlike mandamus, which directs authorities to act, prohibition aims to prevent them from engaging in unauthorized activities. This writ can be issued by a higher court against a lower court to restrict the overreach of judicial or quasi-judicial powers. Its primary objective is to ensure that jurisdictional boundaries are respected and that excessive authority is not exercised. However, this writ cannot be invoked against legislative bodies, administrative entities, or private individuals. Certain conditions must be met for the issuance of a prohibition, including the exercise of powers beyond jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice, reliance on invalid laws, actions contravening fundamental legal rights, or errors evident on record. Through these measures, prohibition serves as a safeguard to maintain the rule of law and protect the integrity of the judicial system.

Public Interest Litigation

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a mechanism through which a case is introduced in a court of law not by the aggrieved party but by a private individual, an organization, or the court itself. It has become a powerful tool for ensuring the legal accountability of the executive and the legislature. The primary aim of PILs is to promote justice and safeguard the welfare of the public. Unlike cases concerning individual interests, PILs are predominantly used to protect collective rights and interests. Fundamental Rights serve as a basis for addressing individual grievances. The Supreme Court and High Courts of India have the jurisdiction to entertain PILs, which emerge from the power of judicial review.
  • Dilution of Locus Standi and Judicial Review: PILs have diluted the traditional principle of locus standi, which restricted the filing of petitions to those whose rights were directly infringed. This concept allows public-minded individuals or entities to seek justice for others who may be unable to approach the court themselves. PILs are often employed to challenge decisions or inactions by public authorities through judicial review, ensuring the lawfulness and fairness of administrative actions.
  • Landmark Judgments via PILs: Over the years, PILs have played a transformative role in India’s judiciary, leading to landmark judgments such as the abolition of instant triple talaq, opening religious shrines like Sabarimala and Haji Ali to women, decriminalizing consensual homosexuality, and legalizing passive euthanasia. These cases underscore the significance of PILs in addressing critical societal issues.
  • Filing a PIL in India: Any Indian citizen or organization can file a PIL in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Courts may also treat a letter addressed by an aggrieved individual, a public-spirited citizen, or a social action group as a writ petition. Additionally, courts can initiate action based on credible newspaper reports. The primary condition is that the PIL must address the enforcement of legal or constitutional rights for marginalized individuals who cannot independently approach the court.
  • Historical Evolution of PILs: The inception of PILs in India is traced back to the 1979 Hussainara Khatoon case, where Kapila Hingorani secured the release of approximately 40,000 undertrial prisoners in Bihar. This case argued before a bench led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati marked the beginning of PILs as a permanent feature of Indian jurisprudence. Justice Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer were instrumental in shaping and expanding the scope of PILs, even accepting letters from concerned citizens as writ petitions.
  • Significance of PILs: PILs have democratized access to justice, making it possible for public-spirited individuals or organizations to represent those who lack the resources to seek legal redress. They are a vital instrument for protecting human rights, monitoring state institutions like prisons and protective homes, and ensuring judicial oversight over administrative actions.
  • Criticism of PILs: Despite their significance, PILs have faced criticism for being misused. Frivolous or politically motivated petitions often waste judicial resources and delay genuine cases. Such misuse burdens the judiciary and undermines the original intent of PILs. Currently, only judges have the authority to dismiss baseless petitions, while court registries focus solely on technical compliance, allowing petitions to reach the courtroom regardless of merit.
  • Way forward: To preserve the sanctity of PILs, courts must guard against their misuse for political or personal agendas. Petitioners must act in good faith, and accountability should be ensured for those filing frivolous PILs. Courts must also balance public interests when granting relief, ensuring the extraordinary nature of PILs is reserved for genuine cases. By maintaining stringent standards, PILs can continue to serve as a cost-effective and impactful remedy for upholding justice and promoting public welfare.

Special Leave Petition

• Special Leave Petition: A Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a unique mechanism provided under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). It grants the Supreme Court discretionary authority to hear appeals against any judgment, decree, or order passed by a court or tribunal in India, excluding those related to the Armed Forces. SLP serves as an extraordinary legal remedy that allows the Supreme Court to intervene in cases where no direct right of appeal exists.
  • Characteristics of SLP: SLPs can be filed in both civil and criminal matters. Typically, they address issues involving a substantial question of law or instances of gross injustice. The Supreme Court has absolute discretion to accept or reject an SLP, and it may do so without providing reasons. Once leave is granted, the SLP transforms into a regular appeal. This mechanism acts as a final recourse for justice after exhausting all other legal remedies.
  • Constitutional Basis: Article 136 of the COI empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against judgments or orders of any court or tribunal within the Indian Territory. However, this provision does not extend to cases involving the Armed Forces. The Supreme Court has recognized Article 136 as a constitutional right, and its application can intersect with Articles 32 and 131, which deal with constitutional remedies and the Court’s original jurisdiction in Centre-State disputes, respectively.
  • Historical Origin: The concept of "special leave to appeal" traces its roots to the Government of India Act, 1935. The Act mentioned "special leave" in various sections, primarily addressing appeals to the Federal Court or the Privy Council. These provisions served as the foundation for incorporating the SLP mechanism into the Indian Constitution.
  • Filing and Timeframe: SLPs can be filed under Article 136 against any judgment, decree, or order of a High Court or tribunal. The timeframe for filing an SLP is 90 days from the date of the High Court’s judgment or 60 days in cases where the High Court denies a certificate of fitness for appeal.
  • Eligibility for Filing: Any aggrieved party can file an SLP in the Supreme Court if substantial legal issues or instances of serious injustice are involved. The petitioner must provide a detailed summary of the case, including facts, legal issues, and grounds for challenging the verdict. If the Supreme Court finds merit in the petition, it may issue a notice to the opposing party and subsequently decide whether to grant leave.
  • Grounds for Filing SLP: Although the Constitution does not explicitly list grounds for filing an SLP, some common reasons include:
    • Substantial question of law
    • Gross miscarriage of justice
    • Violation of principles of natural justice
    • Infringement of fundamental rights
  • Procedure for SLP: An SLP must include all relevant case details and be signed by an Advocate-on-Record as per Supreme Court Rules. Once filed, the Supreme Court may grant a hearing to the petitioner. If the Court finds merit, it may invite a counter-affidavit from the opposing party. Based on the arguments, the Court exercises its discretion to grant or deny leave to appeal.
  • Legal Provision: Article 136 outlines the Supreme Court's power to grant special leave to appeal. It states:
    • The Supreme Court may, at its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order passed by a court or tribunal within Indian Territory.
    • This provision does not apply to cases involving the Armed Forces.

How Can Seasoned Advocates Help You?

• Expert Legal Knowledge: In-depth understanding of legal principles, statutes, and case laws. Expertise allows them to address complex legal issues effectively and with precision.
• Thorough Case Analysis: Meticulously analyze all aspects of a case, identifying its strengths and weaknesses. This ensures that they are well-prepared to tackle any challenges that may arise during proceedings.
• Strategic Planning: Design strategies that are tailored to the unique circumstances of a case, maximizing the chances of a favourable outcome.
• Courtroom Advocacy: Excel at presenting arguments persuasively, adhering to procedural rules, and addressing the concerns of the judge effectively. The courtroom presence often enhances the client’s position.
• Negotiation and Dispute Resolution: Skilled negotiators who can secure settlements that benefit their clients without resorting to prolonged litigation. The expertise in arbitration and mediation also helps resolve disputes amicably.
• Protection of Rights and Interests: Above all, seasoned advocates ensure that their clients’ rights are upheld, interests are protected, and justice is served efficiently and effectively.

Conclusion

The legal framework of Writs/PILs/SLPs is complex in India, and it always requires tailored skills and deep knowledge of the Constitutional framework and the laws. As High Courts and the Apex Court are the original and appellate jurisdictions in matters of Writs/PILs/SLPs, it is highly advisable to approach a counsel who possesses the necessary skills to deal with your matter. To know more, contact us.