Introduction to Certiorari
The writ of certiorari is a powerful legal tool used by higher courts (like the Supreme Court and High Courts) to review and correct decisions made by lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies. Unlike an appeal, which re-examines the entire case, certiorari focuses on legal errors, jurisdictional overreach, or violations of natural justice.
This remedy ensures that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities do not misuse their powers and follow fair procedures. It is not available against legislative or purely administrative actions, only against decisions that affect legal rights.
In these cases Muniswami Chetty v. Board of Revenue, 55 Mad 137; LSM Govindaswami Pillai v. Ramalingaswami Pillai, (1932) 62 Mad LJ 644T Hon’ble Court explain about writ of Certiorari that the High Court possesses the same jurisdiction in certiorari as the court of the King’s Bench in England. Such a writ will lie in respect of persons or bodies exercising judicial functions and adjudicating on legal rights of parties. Such a writ can issue only in cases where the court or the officer, whose acts are sought to be made the subject of the writ, has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction which it or he ought not to have assumed. Even if these essentials are present the issue of the writ is purely discretionary in the High Court. The rule is that certiorari should only be granted where no other suitable remedy exists.
When Can a Writ of Certiorari Be Issued?
- Acting Beyond Jurisdiction (Ultra Vires)
A writ of certiorari can be issued when a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority exceeds its legal jurisdiction. Every judicial body operates within defined legal boundaries, and any decision made outside these limits is considered void. For instance, if a consumer court attempts to adjudicate a criminal matter, which falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of criminal courts, its decision would be invalid. The higher courts use certiorari to quash such ultra vires actions, ensuring judicial bodies remain within their authorized domain. This principle prevents the misuse of judicial power and maintains the proper hierarchy of courts.
- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The writ is applicable when there’s a breach of natural justice, which forms the foundation of fair legal proceedings. Natural justice comprises two fundamental rules: first, no person should be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem), and second, no one should be a judge in their own cause (nemo judex in causa sua). If a tribunal decides a case without giving both parties an opportunity to present their arguments, or if the presiding officer has a personal interest in the outcome, the decision becomes legally unsustainable. Certiorari serves as a corrective measure in such cases, nullifying decisions tainted by procedural unfairness and restoring the integrity of the judicial process.
- Error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record
Certiorari can be invoked when there exists a clear and obvious error of law in the decision-making process, visible without extensive examination of evidence. This includes misinterpretations of statutory provisions, application of repealed laws, or decisions contrary to established legal principles. However, it’s crucial to note that not every legal error qualifies – only those that are manifest and substantial. For example, if a tribunal awards compensation under a law that doesn’t apply to the case at hand, this constitutes an error apparent on the record. The writ doesn’t permit re-evaluation of facts unless the factual determination itself is based on such a fundamental legal error.
- Fraud, Mala Fides or Corruption
When a judicial or quasi-judicial decision is tainted by fraud, bad faith, or corrupt practices, certiorari becomes an appropriate remedy. The writ serves to protect the sanctity of judicial proceedings by ensuring that outcomes aren’t influenced by improper motives or unethical conduct. This ground covers situations where evidence has been fabricated, where decision-makers have undisclosed conflicts of interest, or where the entire proceeding was a sham designed to produce a predetermined result. The higher courts exercise this power cautiously, requiring substantial proof of malfeasance, as allegations of fraud or corruption strike at the very heart of judicial credibility.
- Refusal to Exercise Jurisdiction
Certiorari may be issued when a judicial authority wrongfully refuses to exercise its jurisdiction. This occurs when a court or tribunal, despite having the legal authority to hear a matter, unjustifiably declines to do so. Such refusal constitutes an abdication of judicial responsibility and denies parties their rightful access to justice. In these cases, the writ not only quashes the refusal but often works in conjunction with mandamus to compel the authority to perform its duty. For instance, if an appellate tribunal refuses to entertain a valid appeal without proper justification, certiorari would be the appropriate remedy to correct this jurisdictional failure.
When Certiorari Does NOT Apply
- Mere Wrong Decisions Within Jurisdiction
A writ of certiorari cannot be invoked simply because a court or tribunal has made an erroneous decision while acting within its legitimate jurisdiction. The scope of certiorari is limited to examining jurisdictional and procedural irregularities, not reevaluating the merits of a case. If a judicial body has properly applied its mind to the facts and law but reached an incorrect conclusion, the appropriate remedy lies in filing an appeal, not seeking certiorari. This distinction preserves the hierarchy of judicial remedies and prevents higher courts from functioning as appellate authorities for every contested decision. For instance, if a trial court misinterprets evidence but does so within its jurisdictional competence, the error must be corrected through the appellate process rather than through certiorari proceedings.
- Purely Administrative Actions
The writ of certiorari is strictly confined to reviewing judicial or quasi-judicial decisions and cannot be employed against purely administrative or executive actions. Administrative functions that do not involve adjudication of rights or application of judicial principles fall outside the purview of certiorari. This limitation exists because certiorari is designed to supervise judicial decision-making processes, not to oversee routine administrative operations. For example, a government order allocating funds for infrastructure development or an executive decision regarding personnel transfers would not be subject to certiorari, as these actions lack the essential judicial character required for such review. The distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions remains crucial in determining the availability of this remedy.
- Factual Errors Without Legal Implications
Certiorari generally does not extend to correcting mere errors of fact unless such errors are so egregious that they transform into errors of law. The writ is not intended to reassess factual findings or reweigh evidence that was properly considered by the original tribunal. However, an exception arises when a factual determination is made without any supporting evidence whatsoever, or when the tribunal has manifestly ignored crucial evidence that was legally required to be considered. In these exceptional circumstances, the factual error becomes a legal error by violating fundamental principles of evidence evaluation. For instance, if a disciplinary authority terminates an employee based on allegations completely unsupported by any evidence on record, this would constitute a legal error reviewable through certiorari, as it demonstrates a complete departure from established evidentiary standards.
Constitutional Basis & Key Legal Precedents
Articles 32 & 226 of the Indian Constitution
The writ of certiorari finds its constitutional foundation in Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue certiorari for enforcement of fundamental rights, serving as a guaranteed remedy for citizens against violations of their basic rights. Article 226 grants High Courts broader authority to issue certiorari not just for fundamental rights violations but against any judicial or quasi-judicial authority within their territorial jurisdiction. This distinction makes High Courts the primary forum for certiorari petitions, while the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 remains limited to fundamental rights cases.
Syed Yagub v. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477)
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court authoritatively established the grounds for issuing certiorari. The Court held that certiorari would lie: (1) to correct jurisdictional errors when inferior courts/tribunals act without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or fail to exercise jurisdiction; and (2) to remedy situations where courts/tribunals exercise jurisdiction illegally or improperly, such as by violating principles of natural justice. The decision emphasized that certiorari is not concerned with the correctness of the decision but with the legality of the decision-making process.
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas (AIR 1950 SC 222)
This seminal case drew the crucial distinction between judicial/quasi-judicial acts and administrative acts. The Court ruled that certiorari applies only to judicial/quasi-judicial functions where the authority is required to act judicially – i.e., after considering facts and circumstances objectively and applying legal principles to determine rights/liabilities. Purely administrative decisions based on subjective satisfaction do not attract certiorari. The judgment established that the presence of a duty to act judicially is the essential precondition for certiorari jurisdiction.
T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440)
This constitutional bench decision clarified the nature and scope of certiorari, emphasizing that it is not an appellate remedy. The Court held that while certiorari can correct errors of jurisdiction and patent legal errors apparent on the face of the record, it cannot be used to re-examine evidence or reconsider the merits of a case. The judgment established that certiorari serves as a supervisory jurisdiction to keep inferior tribunals within their bounds, not as a means to substitute the superior court’s judgment for that of the tribunal. This remains the foundational principle governing certiorari jurisdiction in India.
Certiorari vs. Appeal: Key Differences
| Aspect | Certiorari | Appeal |
| Purpose | Corrects illegal or unfair decisions | Re-examines facts + law |
| Scope | Limited to jurisdiction, procedure, legal errors | Broad—can reassess entire case |
| Result | Quashes the entire order | May modify or reverse the decision |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: What is the writ of certiorari?
A: Certiorari is a constitutional remedy issued by higher courts (like High Courts or the Supreme Court) to review and quash decisions made by lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial authorities when they act beyond their jurisdiction or violate the principles of natural justice.
Q2: When can a writ of certiorari be issued in India?
A: A writ of certiorari may be issued in the following situations:
-
When a lower body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction.
-
When there is a violation of natural justice.
-
When there is a clear error of law on the face of the record.
-
When the decision is based on fraud, mala fide intent, or corruption.
-
When the authority refuses to exercise its jurisdiction despite being legally bound to do so.
Q3: Can the writ of certiorari be used against administrative decisions?
A: No, certiorari cannot be used against purely administrative or executive actions. It applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial decisions where legal rights are adjudicated based on legal principles.
Q4: What is the difference between certiorari and appeal?
A:
| Feature | Certiorari | Appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Rectifies jurisdictional/legal errors | Re-evaluates facts and law |
| Scope | Limited to legality and process | Broad – includes merits of the case |
| Outcome | Quashes the order | Can modify, reverse, or affirm the decision |
Q5: Is certiorari an absolute right?
A: No, issuance of certiorari is discretionary. Even if all legal conditions are met, the High Court or Supreme Court may choose not to grant the writ if alternative remedies are available.
Q6: Under which Articles of the Indian Constitution can certiorari be issued?
A:
-
Article 32: Supreme Court can issue certiorari only for enforcement of fundamental rights.
-
Article 226: High Courts can issue certiorari for any judicial or quasi-judicial error, not limited to fundamental rights.
Q7: Can certiorari correct errors of fact?
A: No, certiorari does not correct mere factual errors. It addresses only legal errors unless the factual error results in a manifest error of law (e.g., a decision based on no evidence at all).
Q8: Is there a time limit to file a certiorari petition?
Yes, courts expect prompt filing—delays may lead to rejection unless justified.
Q9: Can certiorari be issued against private entities?
A: No, certiorari applies only to public authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Private entities are not subject to this writ.
Q10: Can a High Court’s decision be challenged via certiorari in the Supreme Court?
No—certiorari applies to lower bodies. Instead, an appeal or special leave petition (Article 136) is used.