Writs for CLAT: The Five Writs, Article 32 vs 226

📑 On this page

⚡ The short answer

A writ is a written order from the Supreme Court or a High Court that fixes a public wrong fast. Habeas corpus frees the unlawfully detained, mandamus enforces a public duty, prohibition stops a tribunal overstepping, certiorari quashes its illegal order, and quo warranto ousts an office usurper. The Supreme Court acts only for Fundamental Rights; High Courts for any legal right.

🎬 The 30-second story

The night knock

“What's the charge? Where are you taking me?”

🚓

Rohan

11 pm. Police pick Rohan up after a scuffle. No arrest memo.

“Two days. No magistrate, and no one will say which station.”

🕓

Zoya

Zoya, his neighbour, has tried three stations.

“You're not family. Can you even go to court for him?”

📜

Aarav

Aarav has doubts.

“For liberty, anyone can knock.”

🏛️

Zoya

She files a petition in the High Court that evening.

Tara's ruling: Habeas corpus. The court orders the police to produce Rohan and show the law behind his detention. If they can't, he walks free. Anyone may apply for a detainee. Had a magistrate validly remanded him, the writ would usually fail.

What is a writ, and why do we need one?

A right on paper is a promise. When the State breaks it, a slow civil suit won't help someone locked up tonight. A writ is the fast lane: a written order telling an authority to do something or stop. India borrowed the five from England's 'prerogative writs'.

🧮 The formula

When does a writ make sense?

🧾

A legal right

🏛️

A public body's duty or limit

❌

Breach or excess

⚖️

Writ petition

📌 What CLAT actually expects

The passage will define the writ and its conditions. Test each fact against them: is there a legal duty, is it public, does the petitioner have a right? No article numbers needed.

What does each of the five writs do?

🧩 At a glance

The five writs at a glance

🔓Habeas corpus · 'have the body'

Produce the detainee and justify it, or release him.

📣Mandamus · 'we command'

Orders a public authority to perform a mandatory public duty.

✋Prohibition · 'to forbid'

Stops a court or tribunal while it acts beyond its jurisdiction.

🗂️Certiorari · 'to be informed'

Quashes an order made without jurisdiction or against natural justice.

❓Quo warranto · 'by what authority?'

Makes a public office-holder prove his legal right to it.

Writ	Lies against	Doesn't lie against	Who can apply?
Habeas corpus	Police, jails, any authority, private persons	Lawful detention, e.g. a valid court order	The detainee or anyone for him
Mandamus	Officials, governments, public bodies, courts refusing to decide	Private persons; the President and Governors personally	A person with a legal right
Prohibition	Courts and quasi-judicial bodies, case pending	Administrative bodies, legislatures	A party to the case
Certiorari	Courts, tribunals, administrative orders affecting rights	Legislatures, private persons	The person affected
Quo warranto	Holder of a public office created by law	Private offices	Any person

→ scroll to see more

Prohibition or certiorari? It's all timing

🕒 Timeline

One tribunal, four moments, three writs

🙅
Moment 0

Refuses a case it must hear

Mandamus orders it to decide.
📥
Moment 1

Takes up a case outside its power

Prohibition stops it.
🗣️
Moment 2

Hearing half done

Still pending: prohibition works.
📜
Moment 3

Order passed

Nothing left to forbid: certiorari quashes it.

Which writ fits the facts? A five-question test

🧭 Decision flow

Which writ?

❓ Is someone being held or confined?

By police, a jail, even a relative.

Yes →

Habeas corpus

Unless held under a valid court order.

No ↓

❓ Is someone in a public office he isn't entitled to?

Yes →

Quo warranto

No ↓

❓ Has a public authority refused a compulsory duty?

Not a matter of its discretion.

Yes →

Mandamus

No ↓

❓ Is a court or tribunal acting beyond its power?

No →

No writ: appeal or sue

Private disputes go to ordinary courts.

Yes ↓

❓ Has it already decided?

Yes →

Certiorari

No →

Prohibition

When will a court refuse a writ?

Mandamus needs a duty, not a choice

Mandamus works only where the law says the authority must act. If a rule says the government may pay a bonus, nobody has a right to one. If a licence shall issue once conditions are met, a refused applicant who qualifies gets mandamus.

🎚️ The scale

Can the court command it?

← Mandamus liesNo mandamus →

Mandatory duty

e.g. Licence refused to an applicant who meets every condition

Discretion ignored

e.g. File ignored for months: court orders a decision, not which one

Pure discretion

e.g. A rule making an allowance optional

Making law

e.g. A demand that the legislature pass a new law

No mandamus to legislate. There's no legal duty to make a particular law.
No mandamus for contracts. Contracts create private rights; sue for breach.
No mandamus against private persons, though a private body doing a public duty, like an aided college paying staff, can be reached (Andi Mukta Sadguru Trust v Rudani).
The President and Governors are personally immune; their governments are not.

⚠️ The 'no Fundamental Right violated' trap

Options love 'no writ, as no Fundamental Right was violated'. That's true only in the Supreme Court. A High Court issues writs for any other purpose too, like a statutory right.

Habeas corpus: the writ anyone can file

Liberty can't wait for technicalities, so a friend or stranger can apply, and courts have treated a prisoner's letter as a petition. It reaches private persons too, like a family confining an adult daughter to stop her marriage. It fails where detention is lawful, such as under a valid court order.

Quo warranto: no injury needed

Other writs want an aggrieved petitioner; this one doesn't. Any citizen can ask an unqualified vice-chancellor to show his authority. The office must be public and created by statute or the Constitution.

Article 32 or Article 226: which door do you knock on?

⚔️ Side by side

Supreme Court vs High Court writ power

🏛️Article 32

Supreme Court

•Only Fundamental Rights
•Itself a Fundamental Right

⚖️Article 226

Every High Court

•Fundamental Rights and any legal right
•Discretionary power

Test	Article 32	Article 226
Enforces	Fundamental Rights only	Those plus statutory and other legal rights
Can it refuse?	Meant to be guaranteed	Yes: delay, alternative remedy, disputed facts

Wider in reach: the Supreme Court. Wider in subject: the High Court.

A High Court usually sends you to an alternative remedy, like an appeal, unless a Fundamental Right is at stake, natural justice was broken, the order lacked jurisdiction, or a law itself is challenged.

Lost in the High Court? Can you retry in the Supreme Court?

1
Dismissed on merits, with reasons
Res judicata bars a fresh Supreme Court writ on the same facts. Appeal instead.
2
Dismissed for delay or an alternative remedy
Your right was never judged, so no bar.
3
Dismissed in one line, no reasons
No bar either.

Which cases should you know for writs?

🌑

Landmark case · 1976 · Supreme Court

ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla

📋

What happened

During the Emergency, a Presidential order suspended the right to move courts for life and liberty. Detainees filed habeas corpus anyway.

❓

The question

Can a detainee still challenge his detention?

🔨

What the court held

No, 4 to 1, with Justice H.R. Khanna dissenting. The Constitution was later amended so these rights can never be suspended, and Puttaswamy (2017) overruled the majority.

What CLAT takes from it: A writ is only as strong as the right behind it.

✉️

Landmark case · 1980 · Supreme Court

Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (II)

📋

What happened

A Tihar convict wrote to a judge that a warder had tortured a fellow prisoner. The letter became a writ petition.

❓

The question

Can habeas corpus help a lawfully jailed prisoner?

🔨

What the court held

Yes. It can protect prisoners from torture and treatment harsher than their sentence.

What CLAT takes from it: Habeas corpus guards conditions in custody, not just release.

⛓️

Landmark case · 1983 · Supreme Court

Rudul Sah v State of Bihar

📋

What happened

Acquitted in 1968, Rudul Sah was released only in 1982. He filed habeas corpus and sought compensation.

❓

The question

Can a writ court award money?

🔨

What the court held

It can. The State paid ₹30,000 more, and he could still sue for damages.

What CLAT takes from it: Writs can compensate for a gross rights violation.

How has CLAT asked about writs?

📝 Asked in CLAT 2022 · Q66 Mandamus: duty vs discretion

Writ is a public law remedy… A High Court is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose… Writ of mandamus is issued by a court commanding a public authority to perform a public duty belonging to its office. It can be issued only when a legal duty is imposed on the authority and the petitioner has right to compel the performance of such duty… Such a legal duty emanates by operation of law…

The government of a state made a rule to make it discretionary to grant dearness allowance to its employees. One of the employees filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the government to grant dearness allowance. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

AWrit of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty was imposed on the government to grant dearness allowance.

BWrit of mandamus cannot be granted as a statutory right was conferred on the employee to receive dearness allowance.

CWrit of mandamus can be granted as it is a public law remedy.

DWrit of mandamus can be granted as it is a discretionary remedy.

Reveal answer + reasoning

Answer: A

The passage needs a legal duty. The rule makes the allowance discretionary: no duty, no right.

Why the others fail

B — A statutory right would support mandamus, and none existed.
C — True of every writ; it doesn't meet the duty condition.
D — The court's discretion is no reason to grant.

📝 Asked in CLAT 2022 · Q69 Mandamus: statutory duty

Same passage as Q66 above.

A licensing officer is under a statutory duty to issue a license to an applicant who fulfils the conditions prescribed for the issue of such license. Mr. X, an applicant, fulfilled all the conditions prescribed for the issue of such license, but his application for issuance of license was rejected by the licensing officer. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct?

AWrit of mandamus can be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license.

BWrit of mandamus cannot be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license as there is no violation of fundamental right.

CWrit of mandamus can be granted as it is the discretion of the licensing officer to grant license.

DWrit of mandamus cannot be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license as there is no violation of public duty.

Reveal answer + reasoning

Answer: A

All boxes ticked: a statutory duty on a public officer, a qualifying applicant (a legal right), and a refusal.

Why the others fail

B — The High Court's power goes beyond Fundamental Rights.
C — If it were discretionary, mandamus would fail.
D — Refusing a statutory duty is a breach of public duty.

📝 Asked in CLAT 2021 · Q90 Res judicata and writs

The doctrine of res judicata requires that a party should not be allowed to file same matter repeatedly… if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties… If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed but not on the merits, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar…

Mr. X was dismissed from service by his employer after a proper enquiry. Mr. X challenged his dismissal in High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the High Court dismissed the petition citing that Mr. X has an alternative remedy available. Mr. X took recourse to the alternative remedy before the appropriate forum, but Mr. X's legal action is opposed by the employer on the basis of res judicata. Based on these facts, which of the following is the most appropriate?

ARes judicata is applicable.

BRes judicata is not applicable.

CSince the matter relates to livelihood and life of the person, technical rule of res judicata should not be applied.

DBoth (B) and (C).

Reveal answer + reasoning

Answer: B

Did the High Court decide the merits? No, it only pointed X elsewhere. A dismissal not on merits creates no bar.

Why the others fail

A — The bar needs a decision on merits.
C — The passage applies res judicata even to Fundamental Rights cases.
D — Carries C's wrong reason.

Also asked: CLAT 2022 Q67 (no mandamus to make a law, B), Q68 (none to enforce a private contract, C) and Q70 (none for private duties, D); CLAT 2021 Q86–89 on res judicata.

Can you dodge these writ traps?

💥 Myth vs fact

Traps students fall for

🙅 Myth

Writs are only for Fundamental Rights.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

Only the Supreme Court's. High Courts also act 'for any other purpose'.

🙅 Myth

Only the detainee can file habeas corpus.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

Anyone can, even by letter (Sunil Batra).

🙅 Myth

Writs lie only against the government.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

Habeas corpus reaches private persons; mandamus, private bodies doing public duties.

🙅 Myth

A court can order Parliament to pass a law.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

No legal duty to legislate, so no mandamus.

🎯 Quick quiz

Five fact patterns: which writ, if any?

0 / 5

A private cricket club elects Rohan secretary though he is below its age limit. Zoya, a member, seeks quo warranto.

Q1. Will it issue?

Zoya, 23, is locked at home by her uncle to stop her marrying. Her friend Meher goes to court.

Q2. Which is correct?

A statute reserves certain disputes for civil courts. A state tribunal is halfway through hearing one.

Q3. What should the aggrieved party seek?

Kabir's statutory pension is stopped; no Fundamental Right is involved. He files under Article 32 in the Supreme Court.

Q4. Likely outcome?

Suppose a rule says any dismissal of a writ petition bars a fresh one. Meher's High Court petition is dismissed for delay; she refiles in the Supreme Court.

Q5. Under this rule?

🎯 Writs in a nutshell

Habeas corpus frees, mandamus commands, prohibition stops, certiorari quashes, quo warranto ousts.
Mandamus needs a mandatory public duty and a legal right: no discretion, contracts or law-making.
Prohibition before the decision; certiorari after.
Anyone can file habeas corpus or quo warranto.
Supreme Court: Fundamental Rights only. High Court: any legal right, with discretion.

📎 Good to know, not to memorise

Articles 32 (Supreme Court) and 226 (High Courts). Article 32 is part of the basic structure.
Article 359 allows emergency suspension; since the 44th Amendment (1978), never for Articles 20 and 21.
Article 361: immunity of the President and Governors. Res judicata: section 11, CPC 1908; for writs, Daryao v State of UP (1961).
Alternative-remedy exceptions: Whirlpool v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998).

Make 'which writ?' instant

Timed questions, answers explained.

Practise Constitutional Law drills

Frequently asked questions

What are the five writs in simple words?

Habeas corpus orders a detained person to be produced and freed if the detention is illegal. Mandamus orders a public authority to do a compulsory duty. Prohibition stops a lower court acting beyond its power. Certiorari quashes an illegal order already passed. Quo warranto makes someone prove his right to a public office.

Can a writ be filed against a private person or company?

Generally no, as writs control public power. But habeas corpus lies against anyone detaining a person, including relatives, and mandamus can reach a private body doing a public duty, like an aided college. Purely private disputes, such as contracts, go to civil courts.

What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?

Article 32 lets you go straight to the Supreme Court, but only for Fundamental Rights, and is itself a Fundamental Right. Article 226 lets High Courts issue writs for Fundamental Rights and any other legal right within their territory. The High Court power is wider in subject but discretionary.

What is the difference between certiorari and prohibition?

Both control lower courts and tribunals that exceed their power; the difference is timing. Prohibition is issued while the case is pending, to stop it. Certiorari is issued after the order, to quash it. Once the decision is out, prohibition is too late.

Can the right to file a writ be suspended?

During a national emergency the President can suspend the right to move courts for some Fundamental Rights, as in ADM Jabalpur. Since a 1978 amendment, the right to life and personal liberty and the Article 20 protections can never be suspended.