Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Administrative Laws

Judicial Review of Administrative Action and the Five Writs

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Judicial review is the power of courts to test administrative action for legality. The Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) issue five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto. To solve a question, identify the wrong done, match it to the writ, then check the petitioner's standing and the court.

Understand Judicial Review and Writs

Judicial review means courts examine whether an act of the executive, a tribunal or a public body is lawful. Courts do not ask whether the decision is wise. They ask whether it was within power, followed fair procedure and was reasonable. Even a law made by the legislature can be reviewed against the Constitution.

The usual grounds are illegality (acting beyond power or misreading the law), irrationality (a decision so unreasonable that no sensible authority would make it) and procedural impropriety (breaching natural justice or a mandatory procedure). Arbitrary action also offends Article 14.

The tools of review are the writs. Under Article 32 a person can go directly to the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. That right is itself a Fundamental Right. Under Article 226 a High Court can issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and also for any other purpose, so its reach is wider. Both courts can issue directions, orders or writs of any kind, not only the five named ones.

The five writs each cure a different defect. Habeas corpus frees a person from illegal detention. Mandamus compels a public duty. Certiorari quashes a decision already made without jurisdiction or with error. Prohibition stops a body from going beyond its jurisdiction while proceedings are still pending. Quo warranto tests a person's right to hold a public office.

Writ relief is discretionary. Courts may refuse it for undue delay, availability of an adequate alternative remedy, or lack of standing. Remember that the writ is aimed at public authorities. Private disputes are normally left to civil remedies.

Key rules to remember

Habeas corpus: Meaning: 'you may have the body'; Produces the detained person before the court to test legality of detention. Can be filed by the detainee or by another person on their behalf.
Mandamus: Meaning: 'we command'; Directs a public authority to perform a legal duty it has failed to do. Needs a public duty and a legal right to demand it. It can issue against the Union or a State government and their officers. It is not issued against the President or a Governor personally, because Article 361 gives them immunity from answering to any court for the exercise of their official powers. It generally does not lie to compel the exercise of a purely discretionary power, though it can control an arbitrary or mala fide exercise of discretion. It also generally does not lie to enforce purely private obligations.
Certiorari: Meaning: 'to be certified'; Quashes an order already passed by a court, tribunal or authority acting without jurisdiction, in excess of it, in breach of natural justice, or with an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Prohibition: Meaning: 'to forbid'; Issued to a lower court or tribunal to stop it from continuing proceedings beyond its jurisdiction. Works while proceedings are pending.
Quo warranto: Meaning: 'by what authority'; Challenges a person's claim to a substantive public office. The office must be public, statutory or constitutional, and the appointment must breach law. Any member of the public may apply, not only a person personally affected, because this is an exception to the usual personal-interest standing rule. The court still keeps its discretion.
Article 32 vs Article 226: Art. 32: enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Supreme Court). Art. 226: enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose (High Court).; Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right. Article 226 relief is discretionary.
Certiorari vs Prohibition: Certiorari = after the order is passed. Prohibition = while proceedings are still pending, before they conclude.; Both address jurisdictional defects. Timing is the key difference.

How to solve Judicial Review and Writs questions

Use this order for any theory or problem question on judicial review and writs. It keeps the answer in the provision, analysis, conclusion format.

1State the core idea in one line: judicial review tests legality, not merits.
2Name the forum: Supreme Court under Article 32 for Fundamental Rights, or High Court under Article 226 for Fundamental Rights and any other purpose.
3Identify the defect in the facts: illegal detention, failure of a public duty, completed order without jurisdiction, pending excess of jurisdiction, or unlawful holding of office.
4Match the defect to the writ and give its Latin meaning.
5Check the conditions: public authority, legal right of petitioner, no undue delay, no adequate alternative remedy.
6Apply the rule to the facts and name any relevant landmark case only if you are sure of it.
7Write a clear conclusion stating which writ will be granted and why, or why relief may be refused.

Quickest way: Defect-to-writ matching

When to use it: Use when a problem gives short facts and asks which writ applies, and you have only a few minutes.

Ask first: is a person in custody? If yes, think habeas corpus.
Ask: has an authority failed to do a duty? If yes, mandamus.
Ask: is the order already passed and bad? If yes, certiorari.
Ask: is the proceeding still going on beyond power? If yes, prohibition.
Ask: is someone holding a public post illegally? If yes, quo warranto.
Memory aid: after the order, certiorari quashes it. Before it ends, prohibition stops it. Duty not done, mandamus. Office wrongly held, quo warranto.

Common mistakes in Judicial Review and Writs

Confusing certiorari and prohibition.
Both deal with lack of jurisdiction, so they look alike.
Fix: Check timing. If the order is already made, write certiorari. If the proceeding is still pending, write prohibition.
Saying Article 32 covers any other purpose, as Article 226 does.
Students merge Articles 32 and 226.
Fix: Write that Article 32 is for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, while Article 226 covers Fundamental Rights and also any other purpose.
Applying mandamus to enforce a discretionary or private duty.
Students think mandamus works against anyone who does not act.
Fix: State that mandamus needs a public legal duty and a legal right in the petitioner. It does not lie to compel a purely discretionary act or against a private person in a private matter.
Describing quo warranto as available to remove any employee.
The idea of 'challenging a post' is taken too broadly.
Fix: Limit it to a substantive public office created by statute or the Constitution, held contrary to law.
Treating writs as a matter of right.
Because Article 32 is a Fundamental Right, students assume relief is automatic.
Fix: Mention that the remedy exists as a right, but the court may refuse for delay, alternative remedy or lack of standing, especially under Article 226.
Writing only definitions with no application or conclusion.
Students memorise meanings but skip the problem facts.
Fix: After the rule, link each fact to a condition and end with a clear decision on the writ.

Worked examples

Example 1

A licensing authority cancels Rohan's trade licence without giving him notice or a hearing. The cancellation order has already been issued. Which writ can Rohan seek and from which court?

Show the solution

Provision: Article 226 allows a High Court to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. Article 32 is available if a Fundamental Right is enforced.
Facts: the authority has already passed the order, so the wrong is complete.
Defect: the order breaches natural justice because no notice or hearing was given.
Match: the authority is a statutory body and its cancellation affects Rohan's legal rights. It acted in breach of natural justice. An order already made on that footing is quashed by certiorari.
Conditions: the authority is a public body and Rohan has a legal right affected. He should approach without undue delay and show no adequate alternative remedy.

Answer: Rohan can seek a writ of certiorari, because the authority acted in breach of natural justice while affecting his rights. He can approach the High Court under Article 226. He may go to the Supreme Court under Article 32 if a Fundamental Right such as the right to carry on a trade is infringed. The court may quash the order, subject to its discretion, including delay and alternative remedy.

Example 2

A tribunal is hearing a dispute that, by statute, lies outside its jurisdiction. The hearing is still pending. Distinguish the writs that may apply and advise the aggrieved party. Also state when quo warranto would be used instead.

Show the solution

Provision: courts under Articles 32 and 226 can issue prohibition and certiorari.
Facts: the proceeding is pending and the tribunal is acting beyond its power.
Match: prohibition forbids a lower body from continuing proceedings in excess of jurisdiction.
Contrast: if the tribunal had already passed a final order, the party would seek certiorari to quash it.
Quo warranto is different. It is used when the issue is whether a person lawfully holds a public office, not whether a tribunal has jurisdiction.

Answer: The aggrieved party should seek a writ of prohibition from the High Court under Article 226, since the proceeding is still pending. If the tribunal decides, certiorari can quash that order. Quo warranto would apply only to challenge a person's right to hold a public office.

Exam tips

Write the Latin meaning of each writ. It is a quick, safe way to earn marks.
Use a short comparison for certiorari and prohibition. Examiners often ask for this difference.
Always cite Articles 32 and 226 together and state how their scope differs.
In problem questions, quote the facts that trigger the writ before naming it.
Add a closing line on discretion: delay, alternative remedy and standing can defeat a petition.

Practice questions from Administrative Laws

Judicial Review and Writs: frequently asked questions

What is the difference between certiorari and prohibition?

Certiorari quashes an order that has already been passed without jurisdiction or in breach of law. Prohibition stops a lower court or tribunal from continuing proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction. The main difference is timing.

What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?

Article 32 lets you approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and it is itself a Fundamental Right. Article 226 lets you approach the High Court for Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. The High Court's power is wider but discretionary.

How do I remember mandamus and quo warranto?

Link mandamus to 'we command', so it commands a duty to be done. Link quo warranto to 'by what authority', so it asks on what authority someone holds a public post.

Who can file a habeas corpus petition?

The detained person can file it. Another person can also file on their behalf, since the aim is to test whether the detention is lawful. The court examines the legal basis for the custody.