Certiorari in administrative law
Certiorari in Administrative Law
1. Meaning and Nature of Certiorari
Certiorari is a Latin word meaning “to be informed” or “to be made certain”.
It is a writ issued by a superior court (usually the High Court or Supreme Court) to a lower court, tribunal, or public authority.
The writ orders the lower body to transfer the record of a case to the superior court for review.
The main purpose is to quash or annul the decision/order of the inferior authority when it has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice.
It is a corrective writ designed to ensure that lower courts/authorities act within their legal limits.
2. Purpose of Certiorari
To quash an illegal or ultra vires order.
To ensure administrative bodies or tribunals do not overstep their jurisdiction.
To protect citizens from arbitrary or unlawful exercise of power.
It is part of the broader principle of judicial review.
3. Grounds for Issuance of Certiorari
Certiorari is issued when:
The authority acted without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction.
There was a violation of principles of natural justice (e.g., no fair hearing).
The decision was made in bad faith or mala fide.
The decision was arbitrary, illegal, or irrational.
The order is patently illegal or perverse.
4. Who can Issue Certiorari?
In India, both the Supreme Court (under Article 32 and 136) and the High Courts (under Article 226) can issue writs of certiorari.
5. Difference Between Certiorari and Other Writs
| Writ | Purpose | When Issued |
|---|---|---|
| Certiorari | To quash illegal orders/decisions | When authority acted beyond jurisdiction or violated natural justice |
| Prohibition | To prevent lower court from exceeding jurisdiction | When lower court is about to act outside its jurisdiction |
| Mandamus | To command performance of duty | When public authority fails to perform duty |
| Habeas Corpus | To release unlawful detention | When person is illegally detained |
| Quo Warranto | To question authority of office | When a person holds public office illegally |
Important Case Laws on Certiorari
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Citation: AIR 1969 SC 150
Facts: The case involved the selection of members for a Public Service Commission, and the question was whether the decision-making process was influenced by bias.
Issue: Whether violation of natural justice principles (bias) is ground for certiorari.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that violation of natural justice is a valid ground for issuing certiorari.
Decisions made with bias or without giving a fair hearing can be quashed.
Importance:
Established the principle that administrative authorities must act fairly.
Certiorari is an effective remedy against breach of natural justice.
2. R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Citation: AIR 1979 SC 1628
Facts: A contract was terminated arbitrarily by the Airport Authority without following procedure.
Issue: Whether arbitrary termination without hearing violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed by certiorari.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that administrative actions must adhere to fair play and reasonableness.
The termination was quashed as it was arbitrary and violated natural justice.
Importance:
Reinforced the principle of reasonableness in administrative decisions.
Certiorari can be issued to quash arbitrary administrative orders.
3. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975)
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 1331
Facts: A military serviceman was dismissed without the procedure laid down by law.
Issue: Whether the dismissal order can be quashed by certiorari for procedural irregularity.
Judgment:
The court held that failure to follow procedure established by law amounts to illegality.
Certiorari was issued to quash the dismissal order.
Importance:
Clarified that non-compliance with statutory procedure is a valid ground for certiorari.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without notice or reason.
Issue: Whether the order impounding passport was liable to be quashed for violating fundamental rights.
Judgment:
Court emphasized right to fair procedure under Article 21.
Although this was a writ petition under Article 32, certiorari could be invoked to quash illegal administrative orders violating fundamental rights.
Importance:
Expanded the scope of judicial review and certiorari as a remedy for illegal administrative action.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086
Facts: The case concerned environmental pollution caused by industries.
Issue: Whether certiorari can be issued to enforce public interest and environmental laws.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that certiorari can be used as a tool for public interest litigation.
Illegal actions by authorities failing to enforce laws can be quashed.
Importance:
Demonstrated certiorari's role in protecting public interest and enforcing rule of law.
Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Certiorari | A writ to quash illegal or unconstitutional orders/decisions by lower authorities. |
| Grounds for Certiorari | Jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, mala fide action, arbitrariness, illegality. |
| Who Issues | Supreme Court & High Courts |
| Purpose | To ensure administrative authorities act within legal boundaries and respect fairness. |
| Role in Administrative Law | Acts as a crucial check on abuse of administrative power and protects citizens' rights. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments