Prohibition – preventing excess jurisdiction
Prohibition – Preventing Excess Jurisdiction
What is the Writ of Prohibition?
The writ of prohibition is a constitutional remedy issued by a higher court to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority.
It prohibits or restrains the lower authority from exceeding or abusing its jurisdiction.
Essentially, it prevents the exercise of power beyond the authority (excess of jurisdiction) granted by law.
It is a preventive writ, i.e., issued before or during the proceedings, unlike certiorari which is corrective.
Purpose of Prohibition
To maintain the jurisdictional limits prescribed by law.
To ensure fairness and legality in the decision-making process.
To protect parties from unauthorized or illegal acts by administrative bodies.
To uphold the rule of law by preventing arbitrariness or usurpation of power.
When is Prohibition Issued?
When a lower court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or exceeds jurisdiction.
When there is lack of jurisdiction to try a particular issue.
When the authority acts contrary to the principles of natural justice.
When the authority proceeds in violation of statutory procedures.
Who can issue Prohibition?
The High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India have the power to issue the writ of prohibition.
Difference between Prohibition and Certiorari
| Feature | Prohibition | Certiorari |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Preventive | Corrective |
| Purpose | Prevents excess jurisdiction | Quashes illegal or erroneous orders |
| Time of issuance | Before or during trial | After an order or decision is made |
| Issued to | Inferior courts or tribunals | Inferior courts or tribunals |
Important Case Laws on Writ of Prohibition and Excess Jurisdiction
1. K.S. Jagannathan v. Union of India (1963)
Facts: A tribunal was hearing a matter beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
Held: The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition restraining the tribunal from acting beyond its territorial limits.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that jurisdictional limits must be strictly observed.
2. Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1964)
Facts: The Collector of Customs assumed jurisdiction over goods not covered under the statute.
Held: The Supreme Court issued prohibition restraining the Collector from exercising jurisdiction illegally.
Significance: Established that a tribunal or officer exercising jurisdiction illegally or without jurisdiction can be stopped by prohibition.
3. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991)
Facts: The issue was about jurisdiction of the tribunal in claims arising from Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
Held: The Supreme Court issued prohibition restraining the tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction.
Significance: Highlighted the role of prohibition in large-scale public interest matters to ensure jurisdictional correctness.
4. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990)
Facts: Questioned the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal over service matters.
Held: Prohibition was granted when tribunal tried to decide issues beyond its authority.
Significance: Clarified limits of tribunal jurisdiction and emphasized judicial control through prohibition.
5. Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (1967)
Facts: The Company Law Board acted beyond the scope of its statutory authority.
Held: The Court issued a writ of prohibition preventing further action.
Significance: Demonstrated that even statutory authorities are bound by jurisdictional limits.
6. State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (1964)
Facts: A lower tribunal assumed jurisdiction which was vested exclusively with a higher authority.
Held: Prohibition was issued to prevent the unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction.
Significance: Emphasized that jurisdictional boundaries are sacrosanct and courts must intervene when breached.
7. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2009)
Facts: Lower authority attempted to continue proceedings when it had no jurisdiction under the relevant statute.
Held: The Supreme Court issued prohibition to restrain such excess.
Significance: Reinforced that jurisdictional excesses must be checked at the earliest stage.
Key Principles Related to Prohibition and Excess Jurisdiction
Jurisdictional Error: If a tribunal acts without or beyond jurisdiction, prohibition lies.
Non-jurisdictional Error: Mere errors within jurisdiction do not attract prohibition.
No Interference in Merit: Courts do not interfere with the merits of the decision but only with jurisdictional validity.
Natural Justice: Violation of natural justice can be a ground for prohibition.
Discretionary Remedy: Prohibition is a discretionary remedy and courts exercise it judiciously.
Conclusion
The writ of Prohibition is a powerful judicial tool that acts as a check against the excesses of jurisdiction by administrative and quasi-judicial bodies. It preserves the sanctity of statutory boundaries, ensuring that authorities act within their lawful limits. Courts use prohibition to protect citizens from illegal actions, uphold the rule of law, and maintain government accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments