Writ of Prohibition: Ultimate Knight For Judicial Overreach

INTRODUCTION

The writ of prohibition is a judicial order which is issued by the Supreme Court or a high court to any constitutional statutory or non-statutory agency to prevent such agencies from continuing the proceedings, which is in excess or abuse of their jurisdiction or which is in violation of the principles of national justice or which is in contravention of the law of the land.

The writ of prohibition is a writ of right. Thus, it does not apply in cases of excess jurisdiction or legal violations; instead, writ of certiorari is used. The writ of prohibition and certiorari share similarities in rules, scope, and governing principles.

However, there lies a fundamental difference between the two writs. The court issues the writ of prohibition when proceedings are in progress to forbid the authority from continuing. It issues certiorari after the proceedings conclude to quash the final decision. Thus, we observe that the court issues the writ of prohibition at an earlier stage than certiorari. The court applies it at the final stage to quash orders.

However, it should also be noted that the writ of prohibition and the writ of certiorari may overlap each other. If an agency's decision doesn't resolve the matter, certiorari quashes it, while prohibition prevents further proceedings. The norm is to seek prohibition first and certiorari alternatively, as pending prohibition cases may lead to final decisions.

GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Relationship Between Certiorari and Prohibition

The grounds for certiorari also apply to prohibition, except when there is an apparent error of law on record. Halsbury's laws of England provides a definition for the rate of prohibition. According to this definition, an order of prohibition forbids an agency to continue proceedings in contravention of the law of the land in. This implies that an erroneous interpretation of statute law can be grounds for issuing a writ of prohibition.

However, we must note that in India, this definition holds little significance, as it refers to an era in England when certain agencies were not subject to the writ of certiorari. Courts issued the writ of prohibition for every error regarding the law of the land to those agencies. But in India, courts apply the writ of certiorari in such cases as well.

Purpose and Applicability of Writ of Prohibition

In India, courts use the writ of prohibition to protect individuals from arbitrary administrative action. They treat the writ of prohibition as a writ of right. So, the courts ignore the existence of an alternative remedy in cases where someone complains that an inferior tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction or assumes jurisdiction not vested in it by law, as they believe it would unfairly force the person to suffer and submit to the illegal authority before seeking an alternative remedy and then approaching the court.

The writ of prohibition is a swift remedy solely aimed at stopping an administrative agency's proceedings. An alternative remedy does not bar the issue of the writ of prohibition, the mere fact that something must be left to be done is necessary for the issuance of the writ of prohibition is not a role of disability. The writ of prohibition can be issued even in cases where the agency has reached a decision to stop the authority from enforcing its decision the rate of prohibition can be showed even in cases where an authority has not kept any record.

Grounds for Issuance of Writ of Prohibition

The grounds for the issuance of a writ of Prohibition are briefly discussed as follows. 1. Lack of jurisdiction 2. Excess of jurisdiction 3. Abuse of jurisdiction 4. Violations of the principles of natural justice 5. Fraud

In the case of lack of jurisdiction, these situations occur when there is a situation where there is absence of authority of jurisdiction to take action. These situations may arise in the following cases:- (1) Were the authority is improperly constituted (2) In cases where authority commits an error in their decision on jurisdictional facts (3) That the authority proves to be incompetent to take action with respect to locality, party or subject matter (4) That the law that provides jurisdiction is in itself unconstitutional (5) That primary preliminary essentials have been disregarded.

In the case of Rafiq Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1954), the court held that Section 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 provided power to the sub divisional magistrate to either quash the entire order of the panchayat adalat or to cancel its jurisdiction. However, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had no power to modify the order in any manner.

The court issued that the writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Sub Divisional Magistrate where he had modified the conviction passed by the Pacnchayat Adalat by quashing conviction of the accused for one offence and maintaining the order with respect to the other offence.

Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. STO

In the case of Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. STO (AIR 1952 All 764), the court observed that there was a lack of extent of jurisdiction in case where the subject matter was outside the scope of extent of jurisdiction of authority which led the court to issue the writ of certiorari. Writ of prohibition can also apply in this case

With regards to of excess of jurisdiction, it refers to a situation where an authority exceeds its permitted jurisdictional limits. In the case of A.K. Chauduri v. R. K. Datta (AIR 1958 SC 722), the governing body of a college affiliated to Gauhari University had dismissed its principal on the ground of misconduct. The court issued certiorari to quash the decision of dismissal on the ground of excess jurisdiction of the University under Section 2(9) of The Gauhari University Act, 1947 as tis could not appy to principals as it was only confined to teachers.

With regards to abuse of jurisdiction, an authority is deemed to have abused its jurisdiction in case where it exercises its power for improper use, or in bad faith, or for extraneous considerations, or leaves out a relevant consideration, or delegates its power to someone else in cases where it is not allowed to do so.

With regards to violations of principles of natural justice, we must first understand the principles of natural justice by briefly enumerating them as follows:-

1) Rule against bias

Rule against bias encompasses:

Personal bias

Pecuniary bias

Subject-matter bias

Departmental bias

Preconceived notion bias

2) Rule of audi alteram partem, which includes the rights to:

Know adverse evidence

Present a case

Rebut evidence

Cross examination and legal representation

Reasoned decision

This right is thus known as the right to fair hearing and if an administrative agency violates any of the said rules in cases where they are bound to adhere to them, the decision of the agency would be stopped by using the writ of proibition.

Sirsi Municipality v. Cecilia Kom Francis Tellis

In the case of Sirsi Municipality v. Cecilia Kom Francis Tellis (AIR 1973 SC 855), a hospital worker was dismissed without a proper hearing for alleged negligence which resulted in the death of a patient. The court quashed the decision dismissal by issuing a writ of certiorari. Writ of prohibition is also applicable in this case.

State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry

In the case of State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry (AIR 1973 SC 834), it was observed that the pension benefits of an Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department was reduced without proper hearing on the alleged ground of adverse confidential report. The court quashed this dismissal via writ of certiorari as this decision of dismissal went against the principal of natural justice by being in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem.

Daud Ahmed v. District Magistrate

In the case of Daud Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Allahabad (AIR 1972 SC 896), a person’s property which was in his personal possession was requisitioned by the District Magistrate without giving him a proper hearing. The court quashed this dismissal via writ of certiorari as this decision of requisition of property by the District Magistrate went against the principal of natural justice by being in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem.

Conclusion

With regard to fraud, courts observe that if an agency’s decision is founded on fraud, the High Court may apply the writ of prohibition. The High Court treats this as a discretionary remedy and may refuse it on grounds such as laches, acquiescence, availability of an alternate remedy, or lack of benefit to the party.