Writs are nothing but the written orders that are given by either the Supreme Court or the

High Court. These written

orders commands constitutional remedies for the Indian citizens against the violation of their rights or fundamental
rights. According to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, Supreme Court of India can issue writs whereas according to
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, High Courts can issue writs.
Types of Writs:
Habeas Corpus: Literal meaning of Habeas Corpus is 'to have the body of'. This type of writ is used when unlawful
detention has occurred to enforce the fundamental right of individual liberty. When this writ is issued, a person or a
authority who has arrested a another person has to bring that another person before the court.
Rules for Habeas Corpus:
The applicant should be in a custody of other,
Family members can file an application or stranger can also file application in public interest,
Formal or Informal application can be filed,
Same application cannot be made successively to different judges of same court,
All or part of formalities and procedures should not be followed by police while making the arrest, etc.
Mandamus:
Literal meaning of Mandamus is 'we command.' This type of writ is used when a public official or public body or
corporation or lower court or tribunal or even the government has not done the needed duty or refused to do. After this
writ is issued, the duty needs to be resumed.
Grounds for Mandamus: Petitioner must have a right recognized by law
Infringement of the right must be done,
Petitioner must demand the authority to perform the duty and non-performance of the duty must be present,
Other remedy must be absent,
Petitioner must prove that a duty is owed to him and authority has not performed the duty,
The non-performed duty must be mandatory duty, etc.
Prohibition: Literal meaning of Prohibition is 'to forbid.' This type of writ is used when a court which is in lower position
i.e., the lower court exceeds its jurisdiction or un pursue a jurisdiction which is not possessed by it.
Rules of Prohibition: Lower court or tribunal should overstep its jurisdiction,
Lower court or tribunal goes against law, If lower court or tribunal partly acting in jurisdiction and partly outside the
jurisdiction, Prohibition will be issued against the act which is partly outside the jurisdiction,
Proceeding must be pending in the lower court or tribunal,
Application should be made against judicial or quasi-judicial body only, etc.
Literal meaning of Certiorari is 'to be certified' or 'to be informed.' This type of writ is used when a transfer of case which is
pending in the lower courts or the order given by lower courts in a case needs to be quashed. This writ is issued on the
basis of an excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law. After this writ is issued, mistakes in the judiciary are
cured.
Grounds of Certiorari: Overstepping or abuse or absence of jurisdiction should be present by lower courts, Violation of
principles of natural justice can be present, Some error of law can be present, etc.
Conditions of Certiorari: The body or person should have legal authority.
Authority should be related questions affecting the rights of people,
Body or person has a duty to act judicial while functioning,
Person or body has acted in excess of their jurisdiction or legal authority, etc.
Quo-Warranto:
Literal meaning of Quo-Warranto is 'by what authority or warrant.' This type of writ is used when an illegal usurpation of a
public office by a person is done. After this writ is issued, the legality of a claim of a person to office is enquired.
Conditions of Quo-Warranto: Office which is wrongfully assumed by private person should be a public office,
Office should be created by constitution or other statute,
Duties of office should be public duties,
Office should be permanent,
Application should be made against a person who is in possession of office and uses the office,
Office should not be of private nature, etc.
Conclusion:
There are five types of Writs which are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition and all
these writs are an effective method of enforcing the rights of the people and to compel the authorities to fulfil the
duties which are bound to perform under the law.
Judicial review is recognized as a necessary and a basic requirement for construction up of a novel civilization in order to
safeguard the liberty and rights of the individuals. The power of judicial review is significantly vested upon the High Courts
and the Supreme Court of India.
Meaning of Judicial Review
Judicial Review can be understood as a form of court proceeding, usually in the Administrative Court where the lawfulness
of a decision or action is reviewed by the judge. Where there is no effective means of challenge, judicial review is available.
The concern behind Judicial Review is that whether the law has been correctly applied with and right procedures have
been followed.
Judicial Review And Constitution of IndiaIn order to scrutinize the legitimacy of administrative action and the statutes, the
Constitution of India has given influences to the Higher courts and the Supreme Court of India. To guard the rights of public
and implement the fundamental rights are the main objects of judicial review. If any difficulty arises between State and
Center relation, then Article 246 and the Schedule 7 of the Constitution has marked the working zone for the regulation
construction between both State and Center.
Judicial review has evolved in three dimensions: # To protect the legality of essential rights under Part III of the Indian
Constitution.
# To authorize the disinterest of organizational achievement.
# Interrogation of public interest.
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they
are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in
contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation,
notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made
by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not
previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in
particular areas
(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368 Right of Equality[4]
Judicial Review In India Judicial review plays an important role as a protector when the executive, judiciary and legislature
harm the Constitutional values and deny the rights. The judicial assessment is considered as an indispensable feature in the
country. In India, there is parliamentary form of democracy where every section of people is involved in decision making
and policy making process. It is true that the primary duty of the court to apply rule of law and is the groundwork of social
equality. By exercising new powers of Parliament, rule of law which is to be applied by the court cannot be modified. All
those here, who are doing public duty, are accountable. They have to work within the democratic provisions of the
Constitution of India. The concept of separation of power and rule of law is judicial review. The influence of judicial
assessment has been so long under Articles 226 and 227 in case of High Court and Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution
of India for the review.
Mechanisms of Judicial Review In India, three aspects are covered by judicial review that are as follows:
# Judicial review of legislative action
# Judicial review for judicial decision
# Judicial review of administrative action
These facets of judicial review were pronounced by the Supreme Court of India in case ofL. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India[6], stating that the judges of higher court have to interpret legislation up to this end that the Constitutional values are
not to be interrupted. To achieve this end, the judges have to keep in mind that the equilibrium of control, specified in the
Constitution is not disturbed.
Judicial Pronouncements [Link] Prasad v. Union of India It was held by six judge bench, five judges not agreed to
amending the essential rights under the Indian Constitution. However, in case of Keshavanand Bharti v. state of Kerala
where six judges out of seven judges held that Parliament modifying influence has and at all portion of the Constitution can
be amended and over ruled the Golaknath case. The Supreme Court held that the essential rights cannot be modified in
such a method, which will touch the elementary construction of the Constitution.
2.I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu This case was seen from Keshvanand Bharti case in which the cases like Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India and others (1997),Waman Rao and others v. Union of India and others (1981), Minerva Mills Ltd.
and others v. Union of India (1980), Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narnia (1975), where judicial review was considered as
essential and integral Part of the Constitution of India.
3. Mitthu v. State of Punjab The Supreme Court of India has struck down Section 303 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. This
section had made death sentence mandatory. In case Article twenty-one of the Indian Constitution was illustrated by the
S.C.I. complete its frequent pronouncement.
4. P.U.C.L v. U. O. I The Indian Supreme Court, in its historical verdict stated that to disregard or disobey the decision given
by the court, the lawmakers of India have no power to ask for the instrumentality, if the legislature has influence over the
subject matter.
Supreme court and ordinary powers Introduction Previously Federal Court constituted under the Government of India Act
1935, was considered to be the apex court of India which was structured during British rule. Then in 1950, the Supreme
Court was established which took place of the federal court. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and it contains
provisions that are enforced by law. Without the enforcement of the law, the provisions embedded under the constitution
are meaningless. Therefore the judiciary has independence in order to interpret the provisions of the Indian constitution.
Being the apex court of the country the Supreme Court works under the framework of the constitution by acting as the
guardian of the constitution and custodian of the fundamental rights and freedom of the citizens of our country. It is the
interpreter of the provisions and the controller of the entire judicial system of India.
Organization
There is a hierarchical system in the Indian judiciary. In India, the Supreme Court is the apex judicial authority followed by
the high court and then the district court and at last, there comes Panchayat.
Composition
The composition of the Supreme Court is laid down in Clause 1 of Article 124. Article 124 (1) of the Indian Constitution
states that the Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice of India and 33 other judges.
Appointment
The procedure for the appointment of Supreme Court judges is laid down in Article 124(2). As per this provision, the
appointment of a Supreme Court judge is made by the President on the recommendation of the Supreme Court and high
court judges.
Terms of office and removal
As per Article 124(2A), Parliament has the power to determine the age requirements for being a Supreme Court judge.
As per Article 124(2), a Supreme Court judge can hold his office until he reaches the age of 65. However, a judge may step
down from the office in the following ways:
By resignation – The judge can submit a resignation letter to the President.
By removal – A judge can also be removed from an office as per the procedure laid down in clause 4.
By death.
Qualifications Article 124(3) of the Indian Constitution states the following conditions for a person to become a judge of
the Supreme Court
He must be a citizen of India.
If he is an eminent jurist.
He must be a judge of a high court for at least five years.
He has been an advocate of a high court for at least ten years or an advocate of two or more such courts.
Procedure of impeachment A judge of the Supreme Court stands removed if:
A motion is signed by the 50 members of Rajya Sabha and 100 members of the Lok Sabha.
An inquiry committee consisting of a Supreme Court judge and chief justice of the high court and an eminent jurist is
constituted for the investigation of the charges.
If the inquiry committee proves the charges then it is addressed in both the house of parliament.
If the motion is passed with two-third majority in both houses then the motion is addressed to the president.
The judge has the right to in order to prove that he is not guilty.
If the president is satisfied with motion addressed to him, he may issue an order to remove the judge.
Constitutional appeal: under Article 132 of the constitution it has been stated that appeal for any final judgement of the
high court whether of civil or criminal nature for which the high court issues a certificate stating that it contains a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of the constitution lies in the Supreme Court. Even if
the high court refuses to issue the certificate, the Supreme Court has the power to grant SLPin these matters.
Civil Appeals: Article 133 of the Indian Constitution provides that cases of civil nature shall lie in the Supreme Court if the
high court is satisfied with the following conditions and certifies that
The matter involves a substantial question of law
If the high court thinks that this case needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Criminal Appeals: under Article 134(1) a criminal appeal shall lie in the Supreme Court under the following circumstances:
If the high court in an appeal has reversed the judgment of the lower court and sentenced death penalty to the accused
who has been acquitted.
In the second situation when the high court itself has withdrawn a case from a lower court and then sentenced the accused
person death penalty.
If a case is certified by the high court that it is fit for appeal in the Supreme Court. Sometimes the Supreme Court is
conferred with powers by the parliament in order to deal with certain cases decided by the high court.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the Supreme Court is the apex judicial authority of India. The Supreme Court has very wide
jurisdiction and it enjoys enormous powers and functions that it performs for the general interest of the public. It is the
protector of the fundamental rights of an individual and through its grand vision interprets the provisions of the
constitution. It guarantees socio-economic justice to the citizens of India and makes laws which are unquestionable and
binding upon all the other courts.
The Emergency Provisions are contained in part XVIII of the Indian constitution from article 352 to 360. These provisions
enable the central government to satisfy any abnormal situation effectively. The central government becomes all powerful
during the emergency period and the states go under control of the union. The rationality behind the incorporation of
these provisions of the Indian constitution is to protect the Sovereignty, Unity, Integrity and Security of the nation, the
democratic political system and the constitution.
There are three types of emergencies under Constitution of India:
National emergency: Due to war, external aggressions, or armed rebellion (Art 352).
State emergency: Due to the failure of constitutional machinery in states, this is popularly known as �Presidential Rule�
(Art 356). Financial emergency: Due to a threat to the financial constancy or credibility of India (Art 360).
A. National Emergency (Art 352): This emergency provides that if the president is satisfied that a grave emergency exists
whereby the safety of India or any part of India is threatened, either by war or external aggression or armed rebellion,[1]
he may make a Proclamation of Emergency in respect of the whole of India or any part of it as may be specified in the
proclamation.
Parliamentary Approval and Duration: Prior to the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, a proclamation of emergency could
remain in force for 2 months in the first instance, but once approved by parliament the emergency could remain in force
for indefinite period of time as long as the executive wanted it to continue. The 44th Amendment has curtailed the power
of the executive to extend the operation of emergency unnecessarily.
Revocation of National Emergency: A proclamation of emergency may be revoked by the president any time by a
subsequent proclamation, that proclamation does not require any parliamentary approval. The president shall revoke a
proclamation if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving it or disapproving its continuance, where a notice in writing
signed by not less than 1/10th of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha. The notice should be given:
to the speaker, if the lower house is in session, or
to the president, if the house is not in session; a special sitting of the Lok Sabha shall be held within 14 days from the date
on which such notice is received by the speaker or by the president for the purpose of considering the resolution.
Effects of National Emergency:
A proclamation of emergency has drastic and wide-ranging effects on the political system of the government.
The consequences can be grouped into three categories:
Effect on the Centre - State relations,
Effect on the life of Lok Sabha and State Assembly, and
Effect on the Fundamental Rights.
State Emergency (Art 356):
It says that the president can act on report of the Governor or otherwise is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the
state government is unable to perform its duty in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, he may issue a
proclamation. This concludes that the president can also act even without the Governor�s report.
Art 355 justifies it by saying that the centre is obliged to ensure that the government of the state is carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Indian constitution. In that circumstance, proclamation by president is called
�proclamation due to the failure of constitutional machinery in state�.
By that proclamation: The president may assume to himself all or any of the powers vested in the Governor or exercised
by him to anybody or authority in the state.
The president may declare that the powers of the legislature of the state shall be exercised by or under the authority of
parliament.
The president may make such consequential provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or desirable for giving effect
to the object of proclamation.
Parliamentary Approval and Duration: A proclamation declaring financial emergency must be approved by both the
houses of parliament within two months from the date of its issue, it survives until 30 days from the first sitting of Lok
Sabha after its reconstruction if at the time of proclamation, the Lok Sabha was dissolved or the dissolution of Lok Sabha
was taking place. Once the proclamation is approved by both the houses of parliament the financial emergency continues
indefinitely, its time is unspecified till it is revoked. The repeated parliamentary approval is not required for its continuation
like other two emergencies.
Criticism of Financial Emergency: The federal character of the constitution will be destroyed and therefore the union will
become all powerful.
The powers of the state will entirely be given to the union executive.
The president will become a dictator.
The financial autonomy of the state will become invalidate.
Fundamental rights will become meaningless and due to which the democratic foundations of the constitution will be
destroyed.
Conclusion Emergency provisions were amended under the Constitution for the security of the country and for the
protection of its people but these provisions delegates excessive power to the Executives. This affects the federal character
of the Constitution, and the union becomes all powerful. Although, the need for Emergency provisions is understood but
there are some changes required in the mechanism so that there is no violation of fundamental rights of the citizens and
there is no misuse of the powers vested to the executives for their political purposes.
Legislative relations between centre(union) and state Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once said that the basic principle of the
federations is that the legislative and executive authority is divided between the centre and the states not by any law to be
established by the centre, but by the constitution itself. In no way does the member states rely on the centre for their
legislative or executive authority. The states and the centre are the same in this matter. The above statement makes it very
clear that the Constitution of India establishes a federal framework as the basic structure of the government of the
country. It is from the Constitution, which separates all competences-legislative, executive and financial-that union and
states derive their power. As a result, the states do not delegate to the Union but are autonomous within their spheres as
provided for in the Constitution.
Centre-State legislative relations
The Constitution of India establishes a dual constitutional authority with a simple separation of powers, each of which is
sovereign within its domain. The Indian federation is not the result, and Indian units cannot leave the union, as a
consequence of an arrangement between independent units.
[Link] Legislative relations;
[Link] Administrative relations;
[Link] relations.
Territory jurisdiction:
Concerning the territory, Article 245(1) requires a State Legislature to make law for the entire or any part of the State to
which it belongs, subject to the dispositions of this constitution. Unless the boundaries of the state itself are broadened by
an act of the Parliament, a State legislature can not broaden territorial jurisdiction in any circumstance. On the other hand,
Parliament has the right to legislate “on all or part of India’s territory, which does not only include the States but also
Indian Union territory.” It also has the strength of extra-territorial laws that no state legislature has. This means that the
laws made by Parliament would apply not only to individuals and territory but also to Indian subjects living anywhere in the
world.
Subject matter:
A federal structure demands that the centre and States share their forces. The nature of the distribution is different in
every region, depending on the local and political context. For instance, in America, sovereign states did not like the
absolute central government subordination. Therefore, although maintaining the remainder, they believed in confiding
subjects of popular interest to the central government. Australia was pursuing just one set of forces in the United States.
Parliament’s power to legislate on State List
Although the Central Government does not have the power in the common circumstances to legislate on matters
mentioned in that State, the Parliament of the Union may only make laws on such matters under some special conditions.
These special conditions are:
a) In the National Interest (Art.249)
Several Articles of the Indian Constitution defined the parliament’s predominance in the legislative area. Article 249
provided that, where Rajya Sabha has declared, by a resolution approved by not less than two-thirds of the members
present and voting, that it is required or reasonable, in the national interest for Parliament to lay down laws in respect of
any matter mentioned in the State List referred to in the resolution, it becomes lawful for Parliament to lay down laws for
the whole or any part of the proceedings. For the time in question, such a resolution was in place not for more than one
year.
b) Under Proclamation of National Emergency (Art. 250)
Article 250 notes that in the case of a declaration of emergency, Parliament shall have the power to make law on any item
on the State List. This legislation shall extend in the case of a national emergency (Article 352) and every State in
compliance with the Order of the President (Article 356) or the event of a financial emergency (Article 360). Under this
time, the laws of the State or States shall remain inoperative to the degree that they are contrary to the law of the centre
(Art. 251).
c) By Agreement between States (Art. 252)
Article 252 provides for regulation by invitation. If the Legislatures of two or more States adopt a resolution and order the
centre to make a law on a specific item of the State Register, it shall be legal for the Parliament to make a law. In the first
place, such law shall apply to the States which have made such a request, unless any other State may subsequently follow
it by passing such a resolution. Third, such laws can only be amended or repealed by Parliament.
d) To Implement Treaties (Art. 253)
To implement treaties or international conventions, Parliament shall have the power to legislate concerning any subject. In
other words, even about a state issue, the usual distribution of powers does not preclude Parliament from passing
legislation to satisfy its foreign obligations or through such legislation (Article 253). The Parliament may pass any Treaty,
international agreement or convention, with any other country or state, or any decision taken during an international
conference, association or other entity, within the whole and any part of the territory of India.
e) Under Proclamation of President’s Rule (Art. 356)
By Article 356 and Article 357 of the Indian Constitution, the prevalence of Parliament was further defined. Article 356
stipulated that if the President was satisfied that there existed a situation in which the government of the State can not be
enforced according to the provisions of the Constitution, he may declare exercisable by or under the competence of the
Parliament the powers of the Legislature of that State. Parliament must delegate the legislative power to the President, as
provided for in Article 357.
Conclusion; As a result, it is very clear from the scheme of allocation of legislative powers between the Union and the
States that framers have bestowed more authority on the Parliament than against the States. The States do not have sole
authority over the topics given to the States by the Constitution and therefore rendering the States, to that degree,
subordinate to the Centre.