WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Srijita Bhattacharjee, a law student at Assam University, Silchar has authored a blog on "Writ of Certiorari."

INTRODUCTION

A writ is a formal directive from a court pursuant to its legal authority. An individual or entity can petition the court to grant a specific writ by submitting an application. The Constitution of India empowers the seeking of such writs under Article 32 and Article 226., provides five types of writs to the citizens of India.

1. Habeas corpus
2. Mandamus
3. Certiorari
4. Prohibition
5. Quo Warranto

CERTIORARI

The term "certiorari" implies being "informed" or "certified" of something. Typically, a higher court issues it to a lower court to either transfer a pending case upstream or nullify a rendered judgment. However, in 1991 the Supreme Court ruled certiorari can also apply to administrative bodies if their decisions infringe on individual rights. Two key principles govern certiorari issuance:

• First, the High Court granting certiorari does not thereby claim appellate powers. It will not reevaluate evidence underlying the lower body's ruling. But it may issue certiorari where the record plainly shows an error of law, provided certiorari is not casually invoked given its status as a high prerogative writ.
• Second, the extraordinary remedy afforded by Article 226 is discretionary. The writ court can flexibly issue orders in the public interest and equity. Legal formulas cannot ignore case realities. While applying the law, equity may temper it. If equity demands not taking the law to its logical end after correcting it, the High Court would fail its duties by ignoring equitable considerations and not molding the final order per its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach effectively reduces the High Court to a typical appellate court.

Additionally, the Court referred to T.C. Basappa establishing certiorari principles - it may issue in suitable cases and ways provided fundamental principles are honored. It reiterated a court's jurisdiction lets it be wrong or right, and superior courts should not rehear cases and override findings when the legislature provides no appeal, as that defeats legislative policy and purpose.

The Court stated certiorari's purpose as confining inferior bodies within their jurisdiction and preventing irregular, illegal, or absent exercise of it - not correcting errors of fact or law made while properly exercising statutory powers.

Certiorari is a high prerogative writ not casually issued. It is supervisory, not appellate. Thus, the Court is not sitting in appeal to test legality and make different conclusions when adjudicating certiorari applications. It will not reexamine evidence to verify conclusions. Well-established law says certiorari is inappropriate where the decision was wrong on the facts or merits.

RECENT JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India heard the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das in 2023. This case came before the Supreme Court as a civil appeal filed by the Central Council challenging an order passed by the High Court of Orissa.

The background of the case is that the respondent, Bikartan Das, had initially received an unfavorable ruling from the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding an employment retirement age benefits issue. The Tribunal had declined to extend to Das the increased retirement age of 65 years that had been granted to doctors working under the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH). Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, Das filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court invoking its power of judicial review over administrative bodies. The Orissa High Court examined the retirement age benefit issue afresh and passed an order overturning the Tribunal's ruling. The High Court held that Das was entitled to receive the higher retirement age as applicable to AYUSH doctors.

The Central Council, dissatisfied by the High Court's intervention in the Tribunal's decision, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench hearing the appeal comprised of the Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala. After hearing elaborate arguments advanced by both sides, the Supreme Court allowed the Central Council's appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's order directing the retirement age benefit to Das was unsustainable in law.

In addition to adjudicating on the specific retirement age issue, the Supreme Court also took the opportunity to discuss in detail the scope of the High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

The Court analyzed the circumstances in which Article 226 could be properly invoked, especially the prudence behind issuing certiorari writs to administrative bodies like the Tribunal. This discussion on the limits of certiorari was an important aspect of the Supreme Court's ruling, providing guidance to High Courts.

#law #writ #constitution #lawopedia #lawinternships #blogging