Prohibition in administrative law
I. Meaning of Certiorari
Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to quash the order or decision of a lower court, tribunal, or administrative authority that has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of principles of natural justice.
It is one of the five writs under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution (and under common law jurisdictions), and it plays a vital role in judicial review of administrative actions.
II. Nature of Certiorari
Preventive and corrective in nature.
Issued after the order is passed (unlike Prohibition which is preventive).
Can only be issued to judicial, quasi-judicial, and sometimes administrative authorities if they are acting judicially.
Purpose is to quash illegal, void, or unjust decisions.
III. Grounds for Issuance of Certiorari
Lack of jurisdiction – Authority acted beyond its legal powers.
Excess of jurisdiction – Authority went beyond the scope of its power.
Error apparent on the face of the record – Obvious legal errors.
Violation of natural justice – No fair hearing, bias, etc.
Fraud, bad faith or mala fide action.
IV. Key Case Laws on Certiorari in Administrative Law
1. Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani (1950 SCR 621)
Facts: The Government denied a license to an individual under the Imports and Exports Control Act. The decision was challenged on the grounds of arbitrariness.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that quasi-judicial actions of administrative authorities can be subject to judicial review.
Certiorari can lie against such bodies if there is no application of mind, bias, or violation of natural justice.
The decision-maker must act judicially, even if not a judge.
Importance:
Laid the foundation for extending certiorari to administrative decisions with civil consequences.
2. R. v. Electricity Commissioners, ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co. (1924) 1 KB 171
Facts: A statutory body was setting up a new electricity scheme. Local electricity companies challenged the plan.
Held:
Certiorari can be issued to quasi-judicial authorities even if they are administrative bodies, provided they have a duty to act judicially.
Importance:
Landmark English case.
Expanded certiorari from courts to administrative and quasi-judicial authorities.
3. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233)
Facts: An election tribunal passed an order that was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified when certiorari can be issued:
For lack or excess of jurisdiction.
For error of law that is apparent on the face of the record.
For violation of principles of natural justice.
Importance:
Leading Indian case on scope of certiorari.
Differentiated between errors of law and errors of fact.
4. T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440)
Facts: An election tribunal's decision was challenged on the ground that it acted without jurisdiction.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that certiorari is not limited to inferior courts, but also includes tribunals and public authorities.
It is issued where:
There is lack of jurisdiction,
There is violation of principles of natural justice, or
There is error of law on the face of the record.
Importance:
Established broad applicability of certiorari in India.
5. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
Facts: A selection board was formed to recommend officers. One of the members of the board was also a candidate, and the decision was challenged on grounds of bias.
Held:
The selection board was held to have acted in violation of natural justice.
The Court ruled that even administrative actions are subject to judicial review if they have civil consequences.
Importance:
Blurred the line between administrative and quasi-judicial actions.
Certiorari can lie against administrative authorities if their actions affect rights and involve procedural unfairness.
6. Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477)
Facts: A motor vehicle tribunal’s decision was challenged for error of law.
Held:
Certiorari can lie only when:
There is lack of jurisdiction,
There is violation of natural justice, or
There is an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
However, the Court cannot act as an appellate authority over administrative decisions.
Importance:
Clarified that certiorari is not an appeal.
Courts should not re-evaluate evidence.
7. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1959 SC 308)
Facts: The same officer who conducted the hearing also made the final decision, violating impartiality.
Held:
It was a violation of natural justice.
The Court quashed the decision by issuing a writ of certiorari.
Importance:
Reinforced that even administrative decisions require adherence to fair hearing.
Established rule against bias as a ground for certiorari.
V. Conclusion
The writ of certiorari is a powerful tool for judicial review in administrative law. It ensures that public authorities, tribunals, and even administrative bodies do not exceed their powers, do not act arbitrarily, and follow due process of law.
In short, certiorari = quashing of illegal decisions.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Khushaldas Advani | Quasi-judicial acts reviewable | Certiorari allowed |
| R v. Electricity Commissioners | Admin bodies can be judicial | Certiorari extended |
| Hari Vishnu Kamath | Error of law on record | Writ granted |
| T.C. Basappa | Wide scope of certiorari | Tribunal’s act quashed |
| A.K. Kraipak | Bias = violation of justice | Selection invalidated |
| Syed Yakoob | No reappraisal of facts | Limits on certiorari |
| Gullapalli Rao | Hearing and decision must be separate | Order quashed |
RELATED Blog
0 comments