---
title: "The Five Writs: Habeas Corpus to Quo Warranto"
description: "Learn the five constitutional writs under Articles 32 and 226—habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto—their functions and landmark"
url: "https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/lessons/upsc-indian-polity-the-writs-habeas-corpus-mandamus-certiorari-prohibition-quo-warranto"
---

[New](https://modeldiplomat.com/)

The writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto

Read 1 of 4

1/80 XP so far this lesson

Lesson 18 min 20 XP

# The writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto

The five constitutional writs under Articles 32 and 226: their distinct functions, jurisdictional reach, and the landmark cases that define them for UPSC.

## The textual foundation

The writ jurisdiction of the Indian judiciary flows from two provisions. **Article 32** empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or writs — including writs in the nature of *habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari* — for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III). **Article 226** empowers every High Court to issue the same writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also "for any other purpose," i.e. for the enforcement of ordinary legal rights.

This textual difference is decisive and frequently tested:

- Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; Dr B.R. Ambedkar called it "the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it" (Constituent Assembly, 9 December 1948). It is available **only** where a Fundamental Right is infringed.
- Article 226 is a constitutional power, not a Fundamental Right, and is **wider** in scope because of the words "for any other purpose."
- The territorial reach of a High Court under Article 226 extends to a cause of action arising wholly or in part within its jurisdiction (Article 226(2)).

## Borrowed but adapted from English law

The five writs are borrowed from English common law and the prerogative writs of the Court of King's Bench. The Constitution uses the phrase "writs in the nature of," freeing Indian courts from the technical limitations that English courts imposed. The Supreme Court in **T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954)** held that Indian courts are not bound by the procedural fetters of English practice and may mould the writ to the demands of justice.

## Suspension during Emergency

Under **Article 359**, the President may, during a National Emergency, suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights. The notorious application of this was **ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)** — the Habeas Corpus case — where the Supreme Court (4:1, Justice H.R. Khanna dissenting) held that during the 1975 Emergency a detainee had no *locus standi* to seek habeas corpus. The **44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978** corrected this by providing that the rights under **Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during an Emergency**. The Supreme Court formally overruled ADM Jabalpur in **K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)**.

Retain three anchors: Article 32 = enforcement of FRs only (a Fundamental Right itself); Article 226 = FRs plus "any other purpose" (wider); and the dissent of Justice Khanna as the moral high point of Indian judicial history.

One question, then back to the lesson

Ask about this lesson