(..7..)

JUDICIAL AND OTHER REMEDIES[1]

Table of Contents

(Judicial Control of Administrative Action)

QUESTION BANK

Q.1. Discuss fully the writ of Habeas Corpus with reference to the decided cases.

Q.2. What is meant by “Equitable Remedy”? Discuss the scope of equitable remedy of Injunction and Declaration against administrative authorities.

Q.3. Explain fully, a) Writ of Mandamus b) Writ of prohibition.

Q.4. Discuss in brief all writs contained in the constitution.

Q.5. Discuss the various judicial remedies available under the constitution of India.

Q.6. ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has become easier media of judicial redressal. Explain.

Q.7. Discuss fully the writ jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court.

SHORT NOTES

Public Interest Litigation.
Writ of Quo Warranto.
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Writ of Mandamus.
Delay and Latches.
Writ of Certiorari.
Doctrine of waiver.
Writ of prohibition.
Informal Methods of settlement of disputes.

SYNOPSIS

Introduction-

PREROGATIVE REMEDIES:-
A) Constitutional provision regarding prerogative writs:-
B) Enforcement of fundamental rights by Supreme Court (Art. 32):-
C) Enforcement of fundamental right by High Court (Art. 226):-
D) Distinction between Art.32 and Art. 226:-
E) Writs in Particular:-
F) Who Can Apply (locus standi):-
a) Rule of locus standi:-
b) Public Interest Litigation (PIL):-
INSTANCES OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS:-
Release of bonded labours:-
Protection against inhuman treatment:-
Child welfare:-
Right to get pollution free water and air:-
Delay and latches:
STATUTORY REMEDIES:-

(A) Civil suits:-

(B) Appeal to court:-

III. EQUITABLE REMEDIES:-

a) Declaration:-
b) any legal character, (i.e.-status) or
c) any right to any property:-

IV COMMON LAW REMEDIES:-

V OMBUDSMAN

NOTES

Writs in Particular:-

Habeas corpus:-

Meaning:-

Who may apply:-

Procedure:-

Mandamus:-

Meaning:-

Who may apply:-

Against whom mandamus would lie:-

3) Prohibition:-

Meaning nature and scope:-

When issued:-

Who may apply:-

Against whom it lies:-

Distinction between ‘writ of prohibition’ and ‘writ of certiorari’:-

4) Certiorari:-

Meaning:-

Grounds of issue:-

Jurisdiction:-
To correct error apparent on face of record:-
Violation of natural justice:-

Who may apply:-

5) QUO WARRANTO:-

Meaning:

Who may apply –

Introduction:-

Since the concept of the State has changed from ‘Police State’ to a ‘Welfare State’, governmental functions have increased enormously. Consequently, vast powers are conferred on administrative authorities (Government) in almost all fields. It increased fear of abuse of power. Lord Action observes that “every power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely”. Therefore, Administrative Law provides for control over the administration by an outside agency. Such agencies are strong enough to prevent injustice to the individual. At the same time, the law ensures adequate freedom for the administration to carry on its government functions.

Without proper and effective control over administrative authorities, an individual would be of no remedy, even though injustice is done against him. Therefore, to make the fundamental maxim ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ (i. e wherever there is a right, there is a remedy) true, there must be a remedy for violating his right by an administrative authority. Since the right and remedy are two sides of the same coin following remedies are available to an individual for violation of his rights by an act of administrative authority viz:-

Prerogative remedies[2]:- (i. e. writs):-
Statutory remedies[3] :-(i.e. Civil suits, appeals etc.)
Equitable remedies[4]:- (i.e. Declaration, injunction etc.)
Common law remedies[5]:- (i.e. tortious, contractual liability of the government)
Ombudsman[6] (discussed later)
PREROGATIVE REMEDIES[7]:-

In England, the king was considered a fountain of justice[8]; therefore, he exercised various prerogative powers in the interest of justice. He used to issue various kinds of prerogative writs to redress individuals against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrator.

In India, under the provisions of the Regulating Act 1773, the British established three Supreme Courts in three presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay by issuing the Royal Charter. They were vested with the power to issue high prerogative writs. The same power was conferred on High Courts established in 1861. Since then, the Supreme Court[9] and High Courts have been exercising the power to issue writs to protect an individual’s right.

A) Constitutional provision regarding prerogative writs[10]:-

Part III of the Indian constitution, from Art. 12 to 35, provides for fundamental rights to individuals. These rights are guaranteed against arbitrary State action (i.e. Administrative action). Art. 32 and 226 provided the remedy for violation of any of these fundamental rights by administrative action. These two articles make the fundamental right real and true for the maxim ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’. Therefore, Dr Ambedkar, one of the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, said, “if I was asked to name any particular article in this constitution as the most important, an article without which this constitution would be a nullity- I could not refer to any article except this one (Art. 32) it is the very soul of the constitution and the very heart of it”. It shows that the founders of our constitution were well aware of the part played by prerogative writs in England; therefore, they made specific provisions in the constitution under Art[11]. 32 and 226, which empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue various writs to enforce fundamental rights.

B) Enforcement of fundamental rights by Supreme Court (Art. 32):-

Art. 32 is itself a fundamental right placed under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Art. 32 (1) guarantees to an individual the right to move to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 12 to 35 of the Constitution.

Art. 32 (2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari.

Thus, Art. 32 provides a guaranteed quick and summary remedy.[12] for enforcement of fundamental rights because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court without having to undergo the dilatory process of proceeding from the lower to the High Court, unlike ordinary civil litigation. Supreme Court is thus a protector, guarantor or guardian of fundamental rights constituted under the constitution.

C) Enforcement of fundamental rights by the High Court[13] (Art. 226):-

Art. 226 empowers every High Court to issue direction, orders or writs in that nature of habeas corpus mandamus, prohibition, quowarranto and certiorari or any of them under this article an individual can move to the High Court for enforcement of-

a) fundamental rights, or
b) for any other purpose.

This right under Art. 226 is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court.

However, a writ remedy is not available if the alternative statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved person. But in Suresh B. Rajepal V/s. Union Bank of India (2008 All M R)

Held- In each and every case, the availability of an alternative statutory remedy may not be a complete bar to the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court under Art. 226.

D) Distinction between Art.32 and Art. 226:-

The Supreme Court under Art. 32 similarly High Courts under Art. 226 can issue directions, orders or writs. There is some difference between the Supreme Court’s power and the High Court’s power of issuing writs, viz:-

The right is guaranteed under Art. 32 can be exercised to enforce fundamental rights by that Supreme Court. Whereas the right under Art. 226, can be exercised for enforcement of-
a) the fundamental rights, as well as,
b) for any other purpose (i.e. for enforcement of other legal rights) by the High Court. Thus, with this respect, the power of the High Court on the subject matter is wider than the power conferred by Art.32 on the Supreme Court.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 is India-wide. Meanwhile, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 is restricted to the state’s territory, where the High Court is situated. It is also subject to the Supreme Court’s power and Art. 32. Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is wider[14] than that of the High Court.
Art. 32 is itself a fundamental right. On the other hand, Art. 226 is not a fundamental right. Therefore, the issue of the writ may be refused if an equally efficacious remedy is available under any other law.
E) WRITS IN PARTICULAR[15]:- (See Note at the end of this topic):-
F) WHO CAN APPLY[16] (locus standi):-
a) Rule of locus standi[17]:-

The traditional rule is that the right to move to the Supreme Court or to the High Court is only available to that person whose fundamental right has been infringed.[18]. This rule is called the rule of locus standi. In other words, the right to file a petition by an aggrieved person is called the rule of locus standi.

b) Public Interest Litigation[19] (PIL):-

Some persons or groups of persons cannot approach the Supreme Court or High Court for relief because of their poverty or socially or economically disadvantaged position. Therefore, the court has relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi (i.e. only that person whose right has been violated can approach the court for relief). PIL is a new dynamic trend developed recently to help the needy and to protect the rights of the socially, economically and physically downtrodden.

The court now permits public interest litigations or ‘social interest litigation’ from any other public-spirited citizen for the enforcement of constitutional and other legal rights of such socially, educationally or economically disadvantaged person or group of persons. This is a dynamic approach of recent days adopted by the Supreme Court and High Courts; public interest litigation is the most helpful judicial device for enforcing fundamental rights of socially educationally or economically disadvantaged (backward) persons or groups of persons.

INSTANCES OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS[20]:-

The following are some instances of public interest litigation.

Release of bonded labourers[21]:-

In Bandhu Mukti Morcha V/s Union of India[22]

Facts:- the Supreme Court treated an ordinary letter as ‘public interest litigation’. After inquiry, it was found that in some quarries situated in the Faridabad district in the state of Haryana, a large number of labourers worked under ‘inhuman and intolerable conditions, and many of them were bonded labourers.

Held: – The Court issued a writ for the release of bonded labourers and improving conditions of work in stone queries.

Protection against inhuman treatment[23]:-

In Sunil Batra V/s Delhi Administration[24]

Supreme Court held that the writ of habeas corpus can be issued not only for releasing a person from illegal detention but also for protecting prisoners from inhuman and barbaric treatment from police.

Child welfare:-

Courts have issued various writs for the welfare of children. They have ordered that child welfare Agencies must ensure the welfare of children; it is their constitutional obligation. A child cannot be employed in hazardous employment, such as match factories releasing children under 18 who are detained in jails in different states, etc[25].

Right to get pollution-free water and air[26]:-

In Murli S. Deora V/s. Union of India[27]

Supreme Court ordered the prohibition of smoking in public places to protect the health of non-smokers.

Likewise, PIL has been issued in various other spheres, such as protecting ecology and the environment from pollution, giving jobs to the disabled, providing education to the children of prostitutes, etc.

Delay and latches[28]: – (discussed later in this topic)
STATUTORY REMEDIES[29]:-

In addition to the above constitutional remedies, different statutes also provide various remedies to the person aggrieved by administrative action. They are as follows:-

(A) Civil suits[30]:-

A civil suit is a traditional remedy available to the person aggrieved by administrative action under S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those, cognizance of which is either expressly or implied, barred by the statute.

(B) Appeal to court[31]:-

Various statute provisions have been made for filing appeals or revisions.[32] or making references to ordinary courts of law against the decisions taken by administrative authorities.

For example, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, a person aggrieved by the order passed by the Commission may file an appeal in the High Court. Similarly, an appeal lies to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

(C) Appeal to the tribunal[33]:-

Many statutes create an appellate tribunal and provide for filing an appeal against orders passed by administrative officers to exercise their original jurisdictions. For example, under the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs lies to the Central Board of Customs and Excise.

III. EQUITABLE REMEDIES[34]:-

The person aggrieved by administrative action can also resort to an ordinary equitable remedy. Viz:-

a) Declaration[35]:-

Under declaratory relief, the court can declare a person’s right or legal status. However, this is merely a declaration of a person’s right or legal status, not a grant of further relief.

34 of the Specific Relief Act. 1963 provides an equitable remedy of declaration. It provides that if any person is entitled to-
a) Any legal character[36] (i.e.-status) or
b) Any right to any property:-

May institute a suit against any person who denies – or is interested in denying-such character or right. The court may then, at its discretion, make a declaration in such a suit that the plaintiff is so entitled. However, no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief (than a mere declaration of a title), omits to do so. The object of this provision is to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The declaration can be sought against administrative authority, denying an individual’s right or legal character. For example, a declaration can be sought by the plaintiff that his nomination paper at a municipal election has been illegally rejected or that an action compulsorily retiring him is illegal and ultra vires.

In Bernard V/s. National Cock Labour Board[37]

Facts: Some dock workers were suspended and subsequently dismissed. They filed suit for a declaration that their suspension and dismissal were not according to law. At the time of discovery, it was revealed that their suspension and dismissal were not according to law.

Held: – The court declared their suspension and dismissal illegal and held that it was not according to law.

b) Injunction[38]–

An injunction is an order of a court whereby a party is ordered-

i) to refrain[39] from doing an act or
ii) to do a particular act or a thing.

In the former case, the injunction is called a ‘prohibitory’ or ‘restrictive.[40]’ injunction; in the latter, it is called a ‘mandatory[41]’ injunction. ‘Prohibitory injunction is more common than mandatory injunction; prohibitory injunction by nature may be of two types viz a) temporary injunction.[42] b) perpetual injunction[43]

The injunction is an equitable remedy.[44]. It can be granted against administrative authority when it does or purports to do anything ultra vires[45]. It is a discretionary remedy, but courts shall exercise discretion judicially.

In Administrator of the City of Lahore V/s. Abdul Majid[46]

Facts: The plaintiff submitted a building plan to the municipal authorities for the necessary permission. The permission was initially granted but subsequently revoked, even though such permission was granted for other buildings.

Held: – the order of mandatory injunction was issued against the Municipal Authorities.

IV Common Law Remedies[47]:-

Common law remedies include the government’s liability for the breach of contract and tortious acts of its servants. (Discussed in latter topics)

V Ombudsman (discussed in latter topics):-

NOTES

Writs in Particular[48]:-

Arts 32 and 226 confer writ jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. A writ is an instrument or order of the court that directs an individual or an administrative authority to do some act or abstain from doing something. Courts can issue the following types of writs, viz.

Habeas corpus[49]:-

Meaning:-

The Latin phrase ‘habeas corpus’ means ‘have the body’. By this writ, the court directs the person or authority who has detained another person to bring the prisoner’s body before it so that the court may decide the validity, jurisdiction or justification for such detention. The object of this writ is to release a person from illegal detention and not to punish the detaining authority. However, in appropriate cases, the court may award monetary compensation to someone detained illegally.[50].

Who may apply:-

A person illegally detained may apply for a writ of habeas corpus. Still, if the prisoner himself cannot make such an application, it can be made by any other person with interest in the prisoner, e.g. his wife, father, brother, friend, etc.

Procedure:-

every application for the writ of Heabs corpus shall be accompanied by an affidavit[51] of the applicant and must state all the facts and circumstances of an illegal arrest.
if the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie[52] case for granting the prayer, it will issue a rule nisi calling upon the detaining authority, on a specified day, to show cause as to why the rule nisi (release interim order) release should not be made absolute.
on the specified day, the court will consider the merits of the case and will pass an appropriate order.
a) if the court is satisfied that the detention was not justified, it will issue the writ and direct the detaining authority to release the prisoner forth with or
b) On the other hand, if the court finds that the detention was justified, the rule nisi (interim order of release) will be discharged.

In Icchu Devi V/s. Union of India[53]

In this case, the Supreme Court treated an ordinary post card sent by a detainee from jail as a writ petition and ordered an examination of the legality of detention.

Even during an emergency, a writ of habeas corpus for enforcing the fundamental right guaranteed under Art.20 and 21 is maintainable.

Mandamus[54]:-

Meaning:-

Mandamus means a command. It is an order issued by a court to a public authority asking it to perform a public duty imposed upon it by the Constitution or any other law.

Mandamus can be granted only when:-

i) a legal duty is imposed on the authority in question; and
ii) the petitioner has the legal right to compel the performance from such a public authority.

Who may apply:-

A person whose right has been infringed may apply for a writ of mandamus. Thus in the case of an incorporated company, the petition must be filed by the company itself.

Against whom mandamus would lie[55]:-

Writ of mandamus is available against Parliament and Legislatures, courts and tribunals, the government and its officers, local authorities like municipalities and Panchayats, state-owned corporations, universities and other educational institutions, against election authorities and other authorities falling under the definition of State under Art.12 of the constitution.

In G.S.F. Corporation V/s. Lotus Hotels (p) Ltd[56]

Fact: The corporation agreed with Lotus Hotel to provide finance for the construction of a hotel. However, the corporation did not release the funds.

Held: The Gujarat High Court issued a writ of mandamus against the corporation to release the funds as agreed.

3) Prohibition[57]:-

Meaning nature and scope:-

It is a judicial writ. The writ of prohibition can be issued by the superior court (i.e. Supreme Court or High Court) to an inferior court, tribunal, or authority forbidding it from continuing with a proceeding or suit on the grounds that the proceeding or case is without or in excess of jurisdiction. This writ is based on the principle ‘prevention is better than cure.

When issued:-

The writs of ‘prohibition and certiorari’ are issued when an inferior court or tribunal acts without or in excess jurisdiction, violates principles of natural justice, or acts under a law that is ultra vires or contravention of fundamental rights.

Who may apply:-

Where the defect of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of proceedings, an application for prohibition can be brought by the aggrieved party and a stranger.

Against whom it lies:-

Since a writ of prohibition is a judicial writ, it may be issued against courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities such as tax authorities, customs authorities, settlement officers, etc.

The distinction between ‘writ of prohibition’ and ‘writ of certiorari[58]’:-

Both writs of prohibition and writ of certiorari are judicial writs issued by the superior court (i.e. Supreme Court or High Court) against (inferior) courts and Tribunals. However, they differ in the point of time of issuance of it.

The writ of certiorari is issued to quash the decision already given. In contrast, the writ of prohibition is issued to prevent the exercise of the wrong jurisdiction by the lower court in proceeding before it.

4) Certiorari[59]:-

Meaning:-

Certiorari means to certify. In England, certiorari required that a superior court (for instance, the King’s Court) certify to the king that a lower court or tribunal has acted properly in a particular case. The Kings’ Court called for the record of a subordinate court connected with the proceeding of any case, and if it found that the order decision or determination of the lower court was palpable wrong, the court would quash it.

The writ of certiorari in India is issued either to quash a lower court decision or tribunal on the grounds of excess jurisdiction.

Grounds of issue[60]:-

A writ of certiorari may be issued on the following facts:-

Jurisdiction:-

When an inferior court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction rested in it by law, fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, or abuses the jurisdiction. A court of certiorari may be issued against it.

In R. V/s. Minister of Transport[61]

The minister was not empowered to revoke a licence; still, he passed a revocation order.

Held: The order was quashed on the ground because it was without jurisdiction and, therefore, ultra vires.

To correct errors apparent on the face of the record[62]:-

If an error of law is apparent on the face of the record, the decision of an inferior court or tribunal may be quashed by the writ of certiorari.

Violation of natural justice[63]:-

A writ of certiorari is issued on violation of principles of natural justice by a subordinate court or tribunal.

Who may apply:-

Generally, the person whose right has been affected may apply for a writ of certiorari. However, if the question affects the public at large, any person may apply.

5) QUO WARRANTO[64]:-

Meaning: – Quo Warranto’ means ‘what is your authority’ or ‘show our authority’. It is issued against an occupier.[65] or usurper of an independent substantive public office, franchise or liberty to show by which authority he holds the same. If he is found holding such public office, franchise or liberty, to show by what authority he holds the same. If he is found holding such public office, franchise or liberty without authority, the writ of Quo-Warranto ousts him from his office. However, the writ also protects the holder of a public office from being deprived of that office illegally.

In K.B. Raju V/s. A.P. [66]

Held- the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of the Government pleader on the ground that the rules for the said appointment were not complied with.

Who may apply –

An application for a writ of quo warranto challenging the legality and validity of an appointment to a public office may be made by any private person even though he is not personally aggrieved or interested in the matter.

*****

[1] न्यायिक आणि इतर उपाय/मदत [न्यायिक एवं अन्य उपाय/राहत]

[2] विशेष हक्क उपाय [विशेष अधिकार उपाय]

[3] कायदेशिर उपाय [कानूनी उपायों]

[4] न्याय उपाय [न्याय के उपाय]

[5] सर्वसाधारण उपाय [सामान्य समाधान]

[6] लोकपाल/लोकआयुक्त

[7] विषेश हक्क उपाय [विशेष अधिकार उपाय]

[8] न्यायाचा स्त्रोत्र/उगम [न्याय का स्रोत]

[9] The Supreme Court at Calcutta was changed into Federal Court by merging rest of the two Supreme Courts init under the Government of India Act, 1935. Later the same Federal Court was replaced by the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi after the independence.

[10] विशेष हक्क उपायाबाबत घटनात्मक तरतुदी [विशेष अधिकार उपाय के संबंध में संवैधानिक प्रावधान]

[11] Article

[12] संक्षिप्तपणे/लवकर [संक्षेप में/जल्दी]

[13] उच्च न्यायालयामार्फत मूलभूत हक्काची अंमलबजावणी [उच्च न्यायालय के माध्यम से मौलिक अधिकार का प्रवर्तन]

[14] विस्तृत [विस्तार में बताना]

[15] लेखादेष/अर्ज [चालान / आवेदन]

[16] अर्ज कोण करु षकतो? [कौन आवेदन कर सकता है?]

[17] अधिकृत हक्काचा नियम [आधिकारिक अधिकारों का नियम]

[18] हिरावून घेणे [ले लेना]

[19] जनहित याचिका [जनहित याचिका]

[20] जनहित याचिकेची उदाहरणे [जनहित याचिका के उदाहरण]

[21] वेठबिगारांची मुक्तता [बंधुआ मजदूर की मुक्ति]

[22] AIR 1983 SC 803

[23] अमानवी वागणूकीपासून संरक्षण [अमानवीय व्यवहार से सुरक्षा]

[24] AIR 1980 SC 1759

[25] (1953) 2 Question Bank 18

[26] प्रदूशणमुक्त हवा, पाणी मिळविण्याचा अधिकार [प्रदूषण मुक्त हवा, पानी का अधिकार]

[27] (2002) SC

[28] उशीर

[29] कायदेषिर उपाय [कानूनी उपायों]

[30] दिवाणी दोश [नागरिक दायित्व]

[31] न्यायालयाकडे अपिल [अदालत में अपील]

[32] पुनर्निरीक्षण [पुन: निरीक्षण]

[33] न्यायासनाकडे अपिल [ट्रिब्यूनल के लिए अपील]

[34] न्याय उपाय [न्याय के उपाय]

[35] घोशणा [घोषणा]

[36] कायदेशिर दर्जा [कानूनी दर्जा]

[37] (1953) 2 Q.B. 18

Bai Shri Vaktuka V/s. Thakore ILR (1910) 34 Bom.676

Facts- The plaintiff a husband prayed for declaration that a boy aged two years born to the defendant- wife was not his son and to restrain his wife from proclaiming him to be such son and claiming maintenance in that behalf.

Held- Court granted declaration as such.

[38] हुकूम [हुक्मनामा]

[39] परावृत्त करणे [हतोत्साहित करना]

[40] प्रतिबंधात्मक हुकूम [निरोधक आदेश]

[41] बंधनकारक हुकूम [बाध्यकारी आदेश]

[42] तात्पुरता बंदी हुकूम [अस्थाई स्थगन आदेश]

[43] कायम बंदी हुकूम [स्थायी स्थगन आदेश]

[44] न्याय हुकूम [न्याय फरमान]

[45] बेकायदेशिर [गैरकानूनी]

[46] ILR 1947 Lah. 382

In Prabhakar Rao V/s. State of A.P. (1985 SCC 432)

Facts- The age of superannuation of Government servants was reduced from 58 to 55 years. After some time the Government again restored the age of superannuation to 58 years. But during the interregnum period, certain employees who had reached the age of 55 years were retired. They, thus, could not get the benefit of enhanced age of retirement. The question before the court was whether they were entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

Held– that, they are entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

[47] सर्वसाधारण कायदा उपाय [सामान्य कानून उपाय]

[48] अर्ज/लेखादेष [आवेदन/विवरण]

[49] बंदीप्रत्यक्षीकरण/ बंदीवान व्यक्तीला कोर्टापुढे हजर करणे [बंदी का प्रदर्शन/न्यायालय के समक्ष बंदी का पेशी]

[50] In Thameen Ansari’s Case (Reported in Indian Express, Dt. May. 5, 2003)

Facts– The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to Thameer Ansari for his wrongful detention for four months under the Goondas Act.

[51] प्रतिज्ञालेख [शपथ पत्र]

[52] सकृत दर्षनी [साकृत दर्शनी]

[53] But in A.D.M Jabalpur V/s. Shivkant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207)

Held– Supreme Court held that, during the emergency, when suspension of fundamental right has been ordered, no person has locus standi to move any court for a writ of habeas corpus.

[54] परमादेश

[55] कोणाच्या विरुध्द परमादेश [किसके खिलाफ परमादेश]

[56] AIR 1983 SC 848;

In State of Bihar V/s. R. K. Jha (AIR 2002 SC 2755)

Held– Administrative decision cannot be taken to override mandamus.

[57] प्रतिरोध

[58] प्रतिबंध व उत्प्रेशण फरक [रोकथाम और प्रेरण के बीच अंतर]

[59] उत्प्रेक्षण [Certiorari का अर्थ है प्रमाणित करना]

[60] कोणत्या अधिकारावर उत्प्रेक्षण आदेष [किस प्राधिकारी को आदेश निर्देशित करना है]

[61] (1934) 1 K.B. 277

[62] सकृतदर्षनी होणारी चूक दुरुस्त करणे [सकृतदर्षनी होणारी चूक दुरुस्त करणे]

[63] नैसर्गिक न्यायाचे उल्लंघन [नैसर्गिक न्यायाचे उल्लंघन]

[64] अधिकार पृच्छा [अधिकार पृच्छा]

[65] व्यापणारी /गिळंकृत करणे [व्यापणारी /गिळंकृत करणे ]

[66] AIR 1981 A.P. 24