Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and every High Court, respectively, to issue five types of writs -- habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto -- to enforce rights and correct the excess or abuse of power by public authorities. High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broader than the Supreme Court's under Article 32, extending to any legal right, not just Fundamental Rights.
The five writs and what each does
Habeas corpus (“produce the body”) challenges unlawful detention, requiring the
detaining authority to justify the detention or release the person. Mandamus (“we
command”) directs a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to perform, but generally cannot be
used to compel a purely discretionary act. Prohibition stops a lower court/tribunal from
exceeding its jurisdiction, while certiorari quashes a decision already made without
jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice -- the two are often described as mirror images, one
preventive and one corrective. Quo warranto (“by what authority”) questions whether a
person holding a public office is legally entitled to it, and can be sought by any member of the public, not
just someone personally affected.
Article 32 vs. Article 226 -- the key difference
Article 32 lets the Supreme Court issue writs specifically to enforce Fundamental Rights, and is itself
treated as a Fundamental Right. Article 226 gives every High Court writ jurisdiction not just for
Fundamental Rights but for “any other purpose” -- meaning enforcement of any legal right, which is why
Article 226's scope is, in this sense, broader than Article 32's, even though the Supreme Court sits above
the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. In practice, this means many disputes that do not squarely engage
a Fundamental Right -- for example, certain service-law or licensing disputes against a public authority --
can still be brought as a writ petition before the relevant High Court even though they would not qualify for
Article 32 relief before the Supreme Court.
Practical considerations before filing a writ petition
Courts generally expect a petitioner to first exhaust adequate alternative statutory remedies (like a
departmental appeal) before invoking writ jurisdiction, though this is a rule of discretion rather than an
absolute bar -- courts have entertained writs directly where the alternative remedy is illusory, where
Fundamental Rights are directly violated, or where the authority acted wholly without jurisdiction. A writ
petition is also generally not the forum for resolving disputed questions of fact requiring detailed
evidence, which are better suited to a civil suit, and petitioners should also be mindful of delay -- while
there is no fixed limitation period for writ petitions, courts can decline relief on grounds of unreasonable
delay (laches) where the petitioner sat on a known grievance for an extended period without explanation.
Can I go directly to the Supreme Court, or must I first approach the High Court?
You can generally approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 for Fundamental Rights
enforcement, though as a matter of practice and given the availability of Article 226 in the High Courts,
petitioners often approach the High Court first, and courts retain discretion over which petitions to
entertain directly.
What's the difference between prohibition and certiorari?
Prohibition is preventive -- stopping a lower authority from exceeding its jurisdiction before it decides;
certiorari is corrective -- quashing a decision already made without jurisdiction or against natural
justice.
Do I need to exhaust all other remedies before filing a writ petition?
Generally courts expect adequate alternative remedies to be exhausted first, but this is a rule of
practice, not an absolute jurisdictional bar -- courts can and do entertain writ petitions directly in
appropriate cases, such as a clear jurisdictional error or Fundamental Rights violation.
