Writ of Prohibition
Writ of Prohibition
What is the Writ of Prohibition?
The Writ of Prohibition is a judicial order issued by a superior court to a lower court, tribunal, or administrative authority, directing it to stop doing something that exceeds its jurisdiction or violates the principles of natural justice.
Purpose:
To prevent an inferior body or authority from acting outside its jurisdiction.
To restrain illegal or unauthorized proceedings before they cause harm.
Acts as a preventive remedy rather than a corrective one.
Characteristics of Writ of Prohibition
Issued before or during the proceedings.
Applicable only against lower courts or tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities, not against administrative or executive acts.
Prevents jurisdictional excess or abuse of power.
Ensures that authorities do not transgress their statutory limits.
It is a discretionary remedy exercised by courts cautiously.
Grounds for Issuance
The authority acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Acts in violation of natural justice.
Acts in a manner contrary to the law or beyond its power.
Acts where there is no legal right or authority to do so.
Key Case Laws on Writ of Prohibition
1. K.C. Vegetable Oil Works Ltd. v. Union of India (1964)
Facts:
A tribunal started proceedings beyond its statutory jurisdiction.
Holding:
The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition to restrain the tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction.
Importance:
Affirmed that writ of prohibition prevents authorities from acting outside their powers.
Reinforces the court’s supervisory role over tribunals.
2. B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995)
Facts:
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was alleged to have acted without jurisdiction.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition can be issued to stop tribunals from hearing matters beyond their jurisdiction.
Importance:
Clarified that prohibition is an effective tool against jurisdictional errors.
Protects citizens from arbitrary quasi-judicial proceedings.
3. Gurudev Rao v. The Divisional Manager, Andhra Bank (1965)
Facts:
An industrial tribunal attempted to try a matter outside its statutory authority.
Holding:
The Supreme Court issued a prohibition writ to restrain the tribunal.
Importance:
Showed that courts will intervene if tribunals exceed powers.
Reinforced that the tribunal must act within the statute.
4. State of Orissa v. Barik (1954)
Facts:
The Revenue Officer initiated proceedings beyond his jurisdiction.
Holding:
The Court issued a writ of prohibition directing him to desist.
Importance:
Demonstrated that writ of prohibition applies to administrative/quasi-judicial officers exceeding jurisdiction.
Protects public from illegal exercise of power.
5. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
Facts:
The National Tribunal tried to exercise jurisdiction in matters not assigned to it.
Holding:
The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition.
Importance:
Emphasized that jurisdictional limits must be respected.
Writ of prohibition acts as a safeguard against abuse of power.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| K.C. Vegetable Oil Works Ltd. | 1964 | Prohibition restrains authorities acting beyond jurisdiction |
| B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India | 1995 | Prohibition against tribunals exercising excess jurisdiction |
| Gurudev Rao v. Andhra Bank | 1965 | Tribunals must act within statutory authority |
| State of Orissa v. Barik | 1954 | Applies to administrative/quasi-judicial officers |
| A.K. Roy v. Union of India | 1982 | Prohibition prevents abuse of jurisdiction |
When is Writ of Prohibition Not Issued?
When alternative remedies are available.
To challenge administrative or executive actions (other writs are appropriate).
When the authority is acting within its jurisdiction, even if the decision is wrong.
If the matter is pending before a higher authority or appellate tribunal.
Conclusion
The Writ of Prohibition is a powerful preventive remedy.
It protects citizens from unauthorized or unlawful exercise of power by courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial authorities.
Courts exercise this power cautiously and primarily to maintain the rule of law and jurisdictional boundaries.
It complements other writs like certiorari (quashing decisions) and mandamus (compelling action) to ensure administrative and judicial accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments