Aibe 20 constitution law , the Constitution law contain the 10 marks of the total number of aibe exam. Below the important topics highlight is writ under Article 32 of constitution issued by Superior Court.
Right to constitutional remedies is fundamental rights, Article 32 remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part 3 of constitution.
It is the basic feature of the Constitution therefore it cannot be amended , Supreme Court held in L. Chandra kumar vs Union of India 1997.
Article 32(2) the supreme court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs. Including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.
Habeas corpus writ, Aibe 20 constitution law
Habeas corpus is a latin term which means “to have a boby”. The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to secure the release of the person detained illegally.
Prem shankar shukla vs Delhi administration 1980 habeas corpus case
The supreme court held in this case prem shankar shukla Access to human justice is the essence of Article 32. If cruelty is contrary to law, degrades human dignity, violates Article 14, 19, 21.
Icchu devi vs Union of India 1980 habeas corpus case
In this case icchu devi supreme court held that even a post card written by the detainee from prison will be sufficient for the court to active into examination of the legality of detention.
WRIT mandamus
The meaning of Mandamus is a command or the order. The writ of Mandamus can be granted in the circumstances such as the public authority has against the law, exceeded his limits of the power, acted malafide.
Sales tax officer vs kanhaiyalal 1959 mandamus writ
In this case sales tax officer the supreme court issued the mandamus to sale tax officer to refund the tax illegally collected to the petition.
Ajit singh vs state of punjab 1999, mandamus writ case on reservation
In this case Ajit singh vs state of punjab the SC court held that Government to provide for reservation, writ of Mandamus cannot be issued.
Certiorari Writ
The certiorari is a latin term which means to certified. The objective of this writ to protect the FR conferred to citizen, to ensure that inferior courts or authority should exercise it’s power properly.
This certiorari Writ issuing from a superior court calling up the record of proceeding in an inferior(junior) court for review.
Hari vishu vs Ahmad ishaque 1955 certiorari Writ case law
In this case Hari vishnu, writ of certiorari is issued for correcting an error of law apparent on the face of record but not an error of fact.
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs APSRTC 1959, violation of natural justice
In this case gullapalli Nageswara Rao SC, held that the secretary violated the principle of natural justice.
And showed department bias, the secretary for APSRTC published the scheme of Nationalisation of motor transport in the state of AP and also invited objections.
Writ Prohibition under Article 32 of Indian constitution
“Prevention is better than cure”, prohibition writ for inferior court by higher Court, forbids continue proceeding therein in excess of its jurisdiction or in contravention of the law.
The objective of this prohibition writ is to prevents unlawful, improper, abuse of Jurisdiction.
Raj leathers vs secretary to the government of india 1990, prohibition writ
In this case raj leathers the SC held that the petitioner cannot seek the help of the court and obtain a writ of prohibition to stop the authorities from conducting the investigation.
Quo warranto writ, Aibe 20 constitution law
The meaning of Quo warranto is “by what authority?”, The objective of this writ is to safeguard against the usurpation(trespass) of public officers.
P.G. Dhanajayan vs state of kerala 1995 quo warranto writ
In this case P.G. Dhanajayan, the writ of Quo warranto was refused in matters of appointment to represent workers on Abkari workers welfare board.
The writ only can be issued when it is concerned with issue of usurpation (trespass) of public office.
Vankataraya vs Sivarama 1961 AP, quo warranto writ case
In this case vanataraya, it was held that private party may apply for quo warranto to challenge an appointment.
Sources: Dr. S.R. myneni Constitutional law book