CDS Polity · Government Structure — Parliament, Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies
Writs and Landmark Cases
The five writs and when each one lies, which courts can issue them, the Latin maxims of natural justice, and the court cases CDS names.
Why this matters
Twelve CDS questions from 2016 to 2024: 4 EASY, 3 MODERATE and 5 HARD. Habeas corpus was asked twice (2016 and 2017) and the Section 377 case twice (2022 and 2024). The HARD ones ask the exact conditions for a writ, so learn each writ's 'when' as well as its name.
Concept 1 of 3: The five writs and natural justice
A writ is a written order from a higher court. Each of the five has a Latin name that says what it does: 'have the body' brings a detained person before the court, 'we command' makes an official do his duty, 'by what authority' asks a person to justify holding a public post. Learn the meaning and the use follows.
Definition
The writs (Articles 32 and 226):
- Habeas corpus ('you may have the body'): orders a detaining authority to produce a detained person in court; the person is released if the detention is unlawful. Lies against public authorities and private persons.
- Mandamus ('we command'): orders a public official or body to perform a public duty it has failed to do. Not against the President, a Governor or a private person.
- Prohibition: a higher court stops a lower court or tribunal from going beyond its jurisdiction, before it decides.
- Certiorari ('to be certified'): a higher court quashes an order already made by a lower court or tribunal that had legal authority to decide rights, had a duty to act judicially, and acted without or beyond jurisdiction.
- Quo warranto ('by what authority'): asks a person holding a substantive public office created by law to justify it, where the appointment broke the Constitution or a statute.
Natural justice: audi alteram partem, 'hear the other side', means no one is condemned unheard. Nemo judex in causa sua means no one judges his own case. Autrefois acquit, autrefois convict and non bis in idem are pleas against being tried twice for the same offence (double jeopardy).
| Writ | Meaning | Used when |
|---|---|---|
| Habeas corpus | You may have the body | A person is detained unlawfullyQ Asked twice, CDS 2016 (II) and 2017 (II): the writ for freedom after unlawful arrest is habeas corpus. |
| Mandamus | We command | A public official fails to do a public duty |
| Prohibition | To forbid | A lower court or tribunal is about to exceed its jurisdiction |
| Certiorari | To be certified | A lower court or tribunal has decided without or beyond jurisdictionQ CDS 2023 (I): both conditions are needed: a body with legal authority and a duty to act judicially, which acted without jurisdiction. |
| Quo warranto | By what authority | Someone holds a public office created by law without the right to it |
Practice this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps
The same idea in a real exam question:
CDS · 2019 · CDS (II) 2019 — General Knowledge · Q40Hard
Example 1 · Government Structure — Parliament, Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies · Writs and Landmark Cases
Which one of the following conditions laid down in the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Quo-Warranto is not correct?
Prohibition before, certiorari after
Prohibition stops a lower court or tribunal while a case is pending. Certiorari quashes an order it has already made. Both are about acting beyond jurisdiction.
Quo warranto needs a broken rule
Quo warranto lies only for a substantive public office created by law, and only when the appointment contravened the Constitution or a statute. An appointment that follows the statute gives no ground for it.
Double jeopardy is not natural justice
Autrefois acquit, autrefois convict and non bis in idem are about not being tried twice. The rule that no one is condemned unheard is audi alteram partem.
Concept 2 of 3: Which courts issue writs
Only the two highest levels of courts can issue writs. The Supreme Court does it only to protect Fundamental Rights, because Article 32 is itself a remedy for those rights. A High Court can also use writs to protect any other legal right, so its writ power is the wider of the two.
Definition
Writ jurisdiction:
- Supreme Court, Article 32: writs only to enforce Fundamental Rights. The right to move the Supreme Court is itself a Fundamental Right; Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul of the Constitution.
- So the Supreme Court refuses relief under Article 32 where no Fundamental Right has been infringed.
- High Courts, Article 226: writs for Fundamental Rights and for any other legal right, so their writ power is wider.
- Subordinate courts cannot issue writs. Article 32(3) lets Parliament empower other courts, but it has not done so.
| Court | Article | Writs for |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | 32 | Fundamental Rights onlyQ CDS 2020 (I): the Supreme Court can refuse relief under Article 32 when no fundamental right has been infringed. |
| High Courts | 226 | Fundamental Rights and other legal rights |
| District and other lower courts | None | Cannot issue writs |
Practice this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps
The same idea in a real exam question:
CDS · 2020 · CDS (II) 2020 — General Knowledge · Q79Easy
Example 2 · Government Structure — Parliament, Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies · Writs and Landmark Cases
In the Indian judicial system, writs are issued by
No writs from lower courts
Writs are issued by the Supreme Court and the High Courts only. A district court cannot issue one, since Parliament has not used its power under Article 32(3).
Concept 3 of 3: Landmark cases CDS names
Some judgments changed the law so much that they are known by the name of the case. CDS asks either what a case was about or who brought it. Learn each case as a pair: the name and the one thing it decided.
Definition
How these cases work:
- A case is often named after the petitioner, the person or group who went to court. K. S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed the petition that led to the right to privacy judgment (2017, a nine-judge bench, privacy part of Article 21).
- A case can pass through several courts. The challenge to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust. The Delhi High Court read the section down in 2009; the Supreme Court reversed that in Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013); and in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) it finally decriminalised consensual acts between adults.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, later replaced by the Act of 2013.
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplaceQ CDS 2018 (I): the Vishaka judgment pertains to sexual harassment at the workplace. |
| Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi | 2009 (Delhi High Court) | Section 377 tested against Articles 14, 15 and 21 and read downQ CDS 2022 (I) and 2024 (II): the Section 377 challenge is the Naz Foundation case, brought by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust. |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India | 2015 | Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act (online speech) |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India | 2017 | Instant triple talaq is invalid |
| K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 2017 | Privacy is a Fundamental Right |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | Consensual same-sex relations between adults are no crime |
Practice this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps
The same idea in a real exam question:
CDS · 2024 · CDS (I) 2024 — General Knowledge · Q101Moderate
Example 3 · Government Structure — Parliament, Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies · Writs and Landmark Cases
Who among the following filed the Writ Petition that led to the famous verdict of the Supreme Court of India recognising the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right?
Naz Foundation was a High Court case
The 2009 Naz Foundation judgment came from the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court's final word on Section 377 was Navtej Singh Johar (2018).
Puttaswamy brought the case
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy was the petitioner, a retired High Court judge, not a member of the bench that decided it.
Summary — formulas & gotchas at a glance
A revision cheat-sheet for the formulas and gotchas above. Click any concept name to jump back to its full explanation.
Reference tables (3)
The five writs and natural justice5 rows
| Writ | Meaning | Used when |
|---|---|---|
| Habeas corpus | You may have the body | A person is detained unlawfullyQ Asked twice, CDS 2016 (II) and 2017 (II): the writ for freedom after unlawful arrest is habeas corpus. |
| Mandamus | We command | A public official fails to do a public duty |
| Prohibition | To forbid | A lower court or tribunal is about to exceed its jurisdiction |
| Certiorari | To be certified | A lower court or tribunal has decided without or beyond jurisdictionQ CDS 2023 (I): both conditions are needed: a body with legal authority and a duty to act judicially, which acted without jurisdiction. |
| Quo warranto | By what authority | Someone holds a public office created by law without the right to it |
Which courts issue writs3 rows
| Court | Article | Writs for |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | 32 | Fundamental Rights onlyQ CDS 2020 (I): the Supreme Court can refuse relief under Article 32 when no fundamental right has been infringed. |
| High Courts | 226 | Fundamental Rights and other legal rights |
| District and other lower courts | None | Cannot issue writs |
Landmark cases CDS names7 rows
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplaceQ CDS 2018 (I): the Vishaka judgment pertains to sexual harassment at the workplace. |
| Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi | 2009 (Delhi High Court) | Section 377 tested against Articles 14, 15 and 21 and read downQ CDS 2022 (I) and 2024 (II): the Section 377 challenge is the Naz Foundation case, brought by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust. |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India | 2015 | Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act (online speech) |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India | 2017 | Instant triple talaq is invalid |
| K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 2017 | Privacy is a Fundamental Right |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | Consensual same-sex relations between adults are no crime |
Watch out for (6)
- Prohibition before, certiorari after→ The five writs and natural justice
- Quo warranto needs a broken rule→ The five writs and natural justice
- Double jeopardy is not natural justice→ The five writs and natural justice
- No writs from lower courts→ Which courts issue writs
- Naz Foundation was a High Court case→ Landmark cases CDS names
- Puttaswamy brought the case→ Landmark cases CDS names
Test yourself on Government Structure — Parliament, Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies
20 past CDS questions from this chapter, timed at 20 minutes and marked the way the exam marks it. You see your score and every answer the moment you finish. Free to start.