# The five writs explained: habeas corpus to quo warranto **TL;DR:** India recognises five writs, all of them inherited from English law and written into the Constitution: habeas corpus (produce the body), mandamus (we command), certiorari (to be certified), prohibition (forbid), and quo warranto (by what authority). The Supreme Court issues them under Article 32 only to enforce fundamental rights. Every High Court issues them under Article 226 to enforce fundamental rights and "for any other purpose," which makes the High Court's writ power wider than the Supreme Court's. Dr B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the "very soul" and "very heart" of the Constitution because it makes rights enforceable rather than ornamental. This guide walks through each writ with its definition, when it issues, who it runs against, and the cases that fixed its limits. --- ## On this page - [What a writ is, and where the power comes from](#what-a-writ-is-and-where-the-power-comes-from) - [Article 32 versus Article 226: the jurisdiction that matters](#article-32-versus-article-226-the-jurisdiction-that-matters) - [Habeas corpus: produce the body](#habeas-corpus-produce-the-body) - [Mandamus: we command](#mandamus-we-command) - [Certiorari: quash what was wrongly decided](#certiorari-quash-what-was-wrongly-decided) - [Prohibition: stop before it goes further](#prohibition-stop-before-it-goes-further) - [Quo warranto: by what authority](#quo-warranto-by-what-authority) - [The five writs side by side](#the-five-writs-side-by-side) - [The alternative remedy rule and when it bites](#the-alternative-remedy-rule-and-when-it-bites) - [Recent writ matters worth watching](#recent-writ-matters-worth-watching) - [How Niyam helps you research writs](#how-niyam-helps-you-research-writs) - [Frequently asked questions](#frequently-asked-questions) --- ## What a writ is, and where the power comes from A writ is a written order from a constitutional court directing some person, authority, or government to do something or to stop doing something. The five writs the Indian Constitution names by their Latin and English titles are not Indian inventions. They came over from the English common law, where the King's Bench used them as prerogative writs to keep public officers, inferior courts, and the executive within the law. The framers borrowed the machinery but placed it inside fundamental rights, which changed its character. In England a writ was a discretionary favour of the Crown's courts. In India, asking the Supreme Court for a writ to enforce a fundamental right is itself a guaranteed right under Article 32. That last point is the one most worth holding on to. Article 32(1) gives every person the right "to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part." Article 32(2) then empowers the Court to issue "directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate." The text appears in the official record of [Article 32 in the Constitution of India on Indian Kanoon](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/981147/). The phrase "in the nature of" is deliberate. Indian courts are not bound by the exact technical rules that hemmed in the English writs. They issue relief in the nature of those writs, which gives them room to do justice without getting trapped in procedural history. During the Constituent Assembly debates in December 1948, Dr B.R. Ambedkar gave Article 32 the description that has stuck ever since. As [ThePrint records the debate](https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/what-is-article-32-which-ambedkar-said-was-heart-and-soul-of-constitution/546050/), he said that if asked to name the most important article in the Constitution, one without which it would be a nullity, he could point to no article except this one, and that it was "the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it." His logic was simple. A right with no remedy is a right on paper. The writ jurisdiction is the engine that turns the promises of Part III into orders a court can enforce. So the five writs are not curiosities. They are the practical tools through which a citizen forces a public body back inside the law: out of an illegal jail, into a duty it has ducked, away from a decision taken without jurisdiction, and out of an office it never had the right to hold. --- ## Article 32 versus Article 226: the jurisdiction that matters Two articles carry the writ power, and the difference between them decides which court a litigant should approach. Get this wrong and a petition can be sent away on the threshold. Article 32 belongs to the Supreme Court. It is itself a fundamental right, and it is tied to fundamental rights. The Supreme Court can issue a writ under Article 32 only where the enforcement of a Part III right is in question. If no fundamental right is engaged, Article 32 has nothing to bite on. This was settled early and has been repeated since. The Court cannot use Article 32 as a general supervisory tool over every illegality in the country. It is a remedy for the violation of guaranteed rights. Article 226 belongs to every High Court. Its language is broader. As set out in [Article 226 in the Constitution of India](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/), each High Court may issue writs "for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose." Those last four words, "any other purpose," are what make the High Court's writ jurisdiction wider than the Supreme Court's. A High Court can issue a writ not only to protect a fundamental right but also to enforce an ordinary legal right, a statutory right, or to correct any other public law wrong. A taxpayer challenging an arbitrary assessment, a tenderer challenging an opaque award, a citizen forcing a municipality to act: all of these can come under Article 226 even where no fundamental right is touched. There is a second structural difference. The Supreme Court's Article 32 power is a writ power but not a power of superintendence. The High Court, by contrast, also holds a separate superintendence power over subordinate courts and tribunals under Article 227, which sits beside its Article 226 writ power. If you want the practical line between writ jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction inside a High Court, that distinction is worked out in [Article 226 vs 227: writ and supervisory jurisdiction](/blog/article-226-vs-227). There is a deeper reason the writ for liberty grew so important, and it lies in how the courts came to read Article 21. In the early years, the Supreme Court read personal liberty narrowly, requiring only that a "procedure established by law" be followed, however thin that procedure might be. That cramped reading is associated with the preventive-detention era, the original record of which sits in the [Supreme Court Observer archive of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras](https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AK-Gopalan-v-State-of-Madras-Supreme-Court-judgement-preventive-detention.pdf). The position shifted decisively when the Court held that the procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary. That richer Article 21 is what gives habeas corpus its modern bite: the writ no longer tests only whether a procedure was followed on paper, but whether the deprivation of liberty was lawful in substance. It is also worth dispelling a common misunderstanding. Article 32 and Article 226 are concurrent, not sequential. A person whose fundamental right is breached is not obliged to exhaust the High Court first and only then climb to the Supreme Court. The two remedies run in parallel, a point examined in [Bar and Bench's analysis of the concurrent design of Articles 32 and 226](https://www.barandbench.com/columns/tryst-with-the-constitution-the-constitution-envisages-articles-32-and-226-as-concurrent-not-sequential). In practice the Supreme Court often nudges fresh writ matters toward the High Court because the High Court can do more under "any other purpose," and because building a record is easier there. But the choice is the litigant's, not a fixed staircase. Here is the difference in one view. | Feature | Article 32 (Supreme Court) | Article 226 (High Court) | | --- | --- | --- | | Is it a fundamental right? | Yes, it is itself a Part III right | No, it is a constitutional power of the court | | Grounds it covers | Only enforcement of fundamental rights | Fundamental rights plus "any other purpose" | | Breadth | Narrower, rights-bound | Wider, covers legal and statutory rights too | | Territorial reach | All of India | The territory of that High Court | | Can it be suspended? | Only in the manner the Constitution allows | Not suspended in the same way | For the full treatment of the High Court's side, including territorial reach and the kinds of authority it binds, see [Article 226 and the writ jurisdiction of India's High Courts](/blog/high-courts-article-226). --- ## Habeas corpus: produce the body ### What it means Habeas corpus is Latin for "you may have the body." The writ is the oldest and most fiercely guarded of the five. It commands whoever is holding a person, the state, a jailer, or a private individual, to bring that person before the court and to justify the detention. If the court finds the detention unlawful, it orders release. The writ does not test guilt or innocence. It tests the legality of the custody. ### When it is issued Habeas corpus issues where a person is detained without lawful authority, or where the detention, lawful in form, is mala fide, beyond the period allowed, or in breach of mandatory safeguards. It runs against illegal arrests, detentions that ignore the procedure of the law, preventive detention orders that fail constitutional or statutory tests, and private confinement. Because it protects personal liberty under Article 21, it is the writ courts treat with the greatest urgency. ### Against whom It runs against the state and its officers, but also against private persons. A parent confining an adult child, a person holding another in private custody: these too can be reached. The petition need not be filed by the detained person. A relative, a friend, even a stranger may move the court on their behalf, because a detained person is often in no position to file anything. The courts relax the usual rule of locus standi here for obvious reasons. ### The cases that shaped it The dark chapter is [ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/), known as the Habeas Corpus Case. During the Emergency declared in 1975, the question was whether a detained person could move a High Court for habeas corpus when the right to enforce Article 21 had been suspended by presidential order. By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court held that during the Emergency a person had no locus to seek the writ, even against detention that was mala fide or wholly without authority. The lone dissent of Justice H.R. Khanna upheld the rule of law and personal liberty, and it cost him the Chief Justiceship. The majority view is now widely regarded as the Court's worst hour. The correction came decades later. In [Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/), the nine-judge bench that recognised privacy as a fundamental right also expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur and embraced Justice Khanna's dissent. The Court accepted that liberty does not vanish even in an Emergency, and that the majority in 1976 had been wrong. The full text of the original judgment is available on the [Supreme Court Observer record of ADM Jabalpur](https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Supreme-Court-ADM-Jabalpur-v-SS-Shukla-judgement-emergency.pdf). The writ also has limits worth knowing. It is not a substitute for bail or appeal. The Supreme Court has held that [a habeas corpus writ cannot be issued to release an accused taken into custody after bail pleas have been dismissed](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/habeas-corpus-writ-cant-be-issued-to-release-accused-taken-into-custody-after-dismissal-of-bail-pleas-supreme-court-310102). Custody pursuant to a valid criminal process, after courts have refused bail, is not unlawful custody, and habeas corpus is not the route to undo it. Where liberty turns on bail, the relevant principles live in [Bail is the rule, jail the exception under Article 21](/blog/bail-rule-jail-exception-article-21). A recurring modern use, and misuse, is in family and relationship disputes. High Courts have repeatedly cautioned that the writ cannot force an adult woman back to her family or her husband. The Karnataka High Court has held that [a habeas corpus plea cannot be used to compel a woman to return to her family](https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/litigation/habeas-corpus-plea-cant-be-used-to-force-woman-to-return-to-family-karnataka-high-court), and the Allahabad High Court has held that [the writ at a husband's behest to regain his wife is not available as a matter of course](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-writ-of-habeas-corpus-husband-wife-return-not-available-matter-of-course-247364). The Supreme Court has also [issued guidelines to High Courts on handling habeas corpus and protection petitions involving couples](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-guidelines-to-hcs-on-habeas-corpus-protection-petitions-lgbtq-interfaith-couples-252936), stressing that judges must not sit in moral judgment over an adult's choices. --- ## Mandamus: we command ### What it means Mandamus is Latin for "we command." It is a positive order. Where habeas corpus and certiorari undo something already done, mandamus compels something to be done. The court directs a public authority, an officer, a body, or in some cases an inferior court, to perform a public duty it has refused or failed to perform. ### When it is issued Mandamus issues where there is a clear legal duty owed to the applicant and a corresponding legal right in the applicant to its performance, and where the authority has refused or neglected that duty after a demand for performance. It will not issue to compel a discretionary act in a particular way, because discretion belongs to the authority. But it will issue to compel an authority to exercise its discretion, to act according to law, and not to act arbitrarily. It cannot direct the legislature to make a law, nor can it run against the President or a Governor in their constitutional capacity. ### Against whom It runs against public authorities and officers charged with a public duty. The important modern development is that "public" is read by function, not by form. A body that is private in structure but performs a public function, especially with state aid, can be subject to mandamus. ### The cases that shaped it The leading authority on reach is [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1728255/). A private trust ran a science college that received government grants and was affiliated to a university. When it failed to pay teachers what the university's pay scales required, the teachers sought mandamus. The trust argued it was a private body beyond Article 226. The Supreme Court rejected that. It held that a public duty need not be one imposed by statute. Where a body performs a public function, such as imparting education with public aid and under university regulation, mandamus can run against it to enforce the duties that flow from that public character. The case opened the writ to aided institutions and to private actors doing public work. The other classic point is that mandamus can compel an authority to act even where it cannot dictate the outcome. In [Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1685522/), the Supreme Court confirmed that High Courts under Article 226 have wide power to issue mandamus and consequential directions to ensure that an authority exercises its discretion lawfully and does not defeat a citizen's rights through inaction or arbitrary refusal. Mandamus, in other words, is the writ that breaks administrative paralysis without the court itself taking over the decision. --- ## Certiorari: quash what was wrongly decided ### What it means Certiorari comes from the Latin for "to be certified" or "to be more fully informed." Historically the superior court called up the record of an inferior court to examine it. Today the writ is used to quash a decision already made by an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority where that decision is tainted by a defect the law will not tolerate. It is corrective and it looks backwards: the decision exists, and the court wipes it out. ### When it is issued Certiorari issues to quash a decision on a limited set of grounds: where the authority acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it, where it refused to exercise a jurisdiction it had, where it breached the principles of natural justice, or where there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The last ground is the narrowest and the most argued. Certiorari is not an appeal. The court does not re-weigh evidence or substitute its own view of the merits. It corrects a legal defect that is plain, not a debatable conclusion on facts. ### Against whom It runs against bodies that decide, meaning courts, tribunals, and authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It does not lie against a purely administrative act that involves no determination of rights, and importantly, the Supreme Court has held that it does not lie against the judicial orders of civil courts, for which the correct route is the High Court's supervisory power under Article 227, a point developed in [Article 226 vs 227](/blog/article-226-vs-227). ### The cases that shaped it The foundational Indian authority is [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1450722/), an election dispute. The Supreme Court used the case to mark out the contours of certiorari. It held, among other things, that certiorari quashes a decision already rendered and can be granted even after the tribunal that gave the decision has ceased to exist, because the writ is directed at the decision rather than at the continued life of the body. The judgment also tied certiorari to errors of law apparent on the face of the record, separating the writ firmly from a general appeal on merits. The Supreme Court has since [restated the scope of certiorari jurisdiction](https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/sc-explains-scope-of-certiorari-jurisdiction-148029), reaffirming that it is supervisory and not appellate, and that a mere wrong decision is not enough; the error must be one of jurisdiction or one apparent on the record. --- ## Prohibition: stop before it goes further ### What it means Prohibition is the twin of certiorari, but it faces the other way in time. Where certiorari quashes a decision after it is made, prohibition forbids an inferior court or tribunal from continuing with a proceeding it has no business hearing. It is preventive. It stops the wrong before it crystallises into a decision. ### When it is issued Prohibition issues while proceedings are still pending, on broadly the same grounds as certiorari: want or excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or proceeding in violation of the law. The defining feature is timing. There must be something still going on to prohibit. Once the inferior body has delivered its final decision, prohibition has nothing left to stop, and the appropriate writ becomes certiorari to quash. ### Against whom Like certiorari, it runs against courts, tribunals, and authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that are acting, or about to act, beyond their authority. ### How it differs from certiorari The cleanest statement of the line comes from the same case that shaped certiorari, [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1450722/). The principle drawn from it is straightforward: a writ of prohibition lies when proceedings are still pending, while a writ of certiorari for quashing lies after the proceedings have ended in a final decision. Prohibition prevents; certiorari corrects. The grounds overlap almost entirely. The trigger is the stage of the case. A useful comparison of the two writs is set out in [LawBhoomi's note on the difference between prohibition and certiorari](https://lawbhoomi.com/difference-between-writ-of-prohibition-and-certiorari/). Because the grounds are shared, courts in practice are not pedantic about the label. If a litigant asks for prohibition but the decision has already been delivered, the court can treat the prayer as one for certiorari, and the other way around. What matters is whether the body acted without authority, and at what stage the court is being asked to step in. | Aspect | Prohibition | Certiorari | | --- | --- | --- | | Direction in time | Preventive, before the decision | Corrective, after the decision | | Stage required | Proceedings still pending | Proceedings concluded | | Effect | Stops the body from continuing | Quashes the decision already made | | Shared grounds | Want or excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice | Same, plus error of law apparent on the record | --- ## Quo warranto: by what authority ### What it means Quo warranto is Latin for "by what authority" or "by what warrant." The writ asks a person holding a public office a single blunt question: by what authority do you hold this office? If the person cannot show a lawful title to the post, the court ousts them. It is the writ that guards public offices against usurpers. ### When it is issued Quo warranto issues where a person occupies a public office to which they have no lawful claim, typically because the appointment breached the statutory or constitutional qualifications, or because the office was filled in a manner the law forbids. The court inquires into the legality of the appointment itself. If the appointment is bad, the holder is removed, regardless of how competently they have been doing the job. ### Against whom It runs against the individual holding the office, not against the appointing authority directly. The office must be a public office, created by statute or the Constitution, of a substantive and permanent character. It does not lie for private offices or for purely contractual employment. There is a notable feature of standing: because the writ protects the public interest in lawful officeholding, any member of the public may apply, even one who is not personally aggrieved and who does not himself claim the office. ### The cases that shaped it The leading authority is [The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/295084/). A candidate sought quo warranto against a person appointed Reader in English, arguing the appointee did not hold the prescribed qualifications. The Supreme Court laid down the test that survives today. To succeed, a petitioner must satisfy the court that the office is a public office held by a usurper without legal authority, which leads necessarily to an inquiry into whether the appointment was made in accordance with law. The Court framed quo warranto as a tool that lets the judiciary control executive action in making public appointments against statutory provisions, and that protects a citizen from being kept out of a public office they are entitled to. It is a precise instrument: it asks only whether the holder has a lawful title, not whether someone better might have been chosen. --- ## The five writs side by side The five writs divide their work cleanly. One protects the body, one compels action, two control inferior tribunals at different stages, and one polices public office. Holding the comparison in one frame makes it easier to pick the right writ for a given problem. | Writ | Literal meaning | Core purpose | Issued against | When it applies | Key case | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Habeas corpus | You may have the body | Test the legality of detention and free the unlawfully held | State, officers, and private persons | Any unlawful, mala fide, or excessive detention | ADM Jabalpur (1976), overruled by Puttaswamy (2017) | | Mandamus | We command | Compel performance of a public duty | Public authorities and bodies doing public functions | Clear legal duty refused after demand | Andi Mukta v. V.R. Rudani (1989) | | Certiorari | To be certified | Quash a decision tainted by jurisdictional or apparent legal error | Courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities | After the decision is made | Hari Vishnu Kamath (1955) | | Prohibition | Forbid | Stop an inferior body acting beyond its authority | Courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities | While the proceeding is pending | Hari Vishnu Kamath (1955) | | Quo warranto | By what authority | Oust a usurper of a public office | The individual holding the office | Appointment breaches qualifications or law | University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1965) | A practical way to choose: ask what stage you are at and what you want the court to do. Is someone locked up unlawfully? Habeas corpus. Has an authority refused to do its job? Mandamus. Has a tribunal already decided something it had no power to decide? Certiorari. Is it about to decide, and you want to stop it? Prohibition. Is someone sitting in a public office they were never qualified to hold? Quo warranto. If you are moving from understanding the writs to actually drafting one, the procedure, the parties, and the structure of a petition are set out in [How to file a writ petition in India](/blog/how-to-file-writ-petition). --- ## The alternative remedy rule and when it bites One rule trips up writ petitions more than any other, and it is not in the text of Article 226. It is the self-imposed discipline that High Courts will ordinarily not entertain a writ where an equally effective alternative remedy exists, such as a statutory appeal or revision. The idea is that the special constitutional jurisdiction should not become a shortcut around the ordinary machinery of appeals. A tax assessee with an appeal available, a litigant with a revision pending: these are usually told to use the statutory route first. But the rule is a rule of discretion and self-restraint, not a bar on the court's power. The Supreme Court fixed its outer limits in [Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/759262/). The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar in at least three situations: where the petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice; and where the order or proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction, or the vires of a statute is challenged. The enumeration is summarised in [SCC Online's explainer on the alternative remedy rule](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/20/explained-rule-of-alternate-remedy-and-maintainability-of-writ-petitions-under-article-226-of-the-constitution/). High Courts have continued to stress that the rule is a matter of discretion: as the Allahabad High Court put it, the [availability of an alternative remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of the power to entertain a writ in an appropriate case](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-article-226-alternative-remedy-entertaining-writ-plea-appropriate-case-godrej-sara-lee-whirlpool-229008). For habeas corpus the analysis is different, because liberty is at stake and delay can be irreversible. Even there, courts sometimes point to statutory routes. The note on [Section 97 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure as an alternative remedy before habeas corpus](https://www.livelaw.in/columns/criminal-procedure-code-1973-crpc-writ-petition-habeas-corpus-174575) explains how a search warrant for a confined person can sometimes be the quicker first step. But the constitutional writ for personal liberty is rarely refused purely on alternative-remedy grounds. The practical lesson is to know your ground before you file. If your case fits a Whirlpool exception, say so squarely. If it does not, expect the High Court to ask why you have not used the appeal the statute gave you. --- ## Recent writ matters worth watching Writ litigation is not a museum of old cases. It is alive in the current docket, and a few recent matters show how the five writs work in practice today. The most visible habeas corpus matter of the last year arose from Ladakh. After protests in Leh in September 2025, the activist Sonam Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act, and his wife filed a habeas corpus petition. As [Bar and Bench reported, the Supreme Court sought the Central government's response on the plea challenging the detention](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/sonam-wangchuk-detention-supreme-court-seeks-central-government-response-on-plea-by-wife-to-release-hi). The matter wound through several hearings before it was [closed once Wangchuk was released and the detention revoked](https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-closes-plea-against-sonam-wangchuks-detention-even-as-his-wife-asks-to-keep-it-pending). The episode shows the writ doing its classic job: forcing the state to explain a preventive detention before a constitutional court, with the court holding the question open until liberty was actually restored. The boundaries are being policed too. In 2025 the Supreme Court [stayed a High Court's direction to release a person in a criminal case, calling the order prima facie shocking](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/habeas-corpus-writ-cant-be-issued-to-release-accused-taken-into-custody-after-dismissal-of-bail-pleas-supreme-court-310102), and reaffirmed that custody after repeated bail rejections is not unlawful custody that habeas corpus can undo. And in May 2026, a Karnataka High Court vacation bench [dismissed habeas corpus petitions used to drag adult women back into family disputes as an abuse of process](https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/litigation/habeas-corpus-plea-cant-be-used-to-force-woman-to-return-to-family-karnataka-high-court). Together these signal a court that guards the writ jealously for genuine illegal detention while refusing to let it become a tool for control or a backdoor to bail. For litigators tracking how constitutional litigation is developing month to month, the writ caseload is one of the best places to watch the courts draw lines in real time. A broader survey of the Court's recent work is collected in [What the Supreme Court did this month](/blog/supreme-court-this-month-may-2026). --- ## How Niyam helps you research writs Writ jurisprudence is dense, old in places, and constantly moving. A single mislabelled prayer, certiorari where the answer was Article 227, prohibition after the decision was already passed, can sink a petition. The work of getting it right is research work: finding the controlling case, checking whether it is still good law, and reading how the latest benches have applied it. That is what [Niyam](https://app.niyam.ai/register) is built for. Ask a question in plain English, such as "when does habeas corpus lie against private detention" or "is certiorari available against a civil court order," and Niyam answers with the relevant Indian judgments, every proposition cited to a real case you can open and read. Before you rely on a precedent, [check whether it is still good law](/blog/good-law-checking) so you do not build an argument on a judgment that has been overruled, the way ADM Jabalpur was. And when you need to make sense of a long writ judgment quickly, the approach in [How to read a judgment](/blog/how-to-read-a-judgment) helps you find the ratio without drowning in the rest. Indian legal research should be fast and grounded in real sources, not guesswork. That is the standard Niyam holds itself to. ### Start for ₹100 Try Niyam on your next writ question. For ₹100 you get credits to run real research grounded in Indian judgments, with every answer cited to a case you can read. [Create your account and start for ₹100](https://app.niyam.ai/register). --- ## Frequently asked questions **What are the five writs in the Indian Constitution?** The five writs are habeas corpus (to produce a detained person and test the legality of detention), mandamus (to command a public authority to perform a duty), certiorari (to quash a decision already made by an inferior court or tribunal), prohibition (to stop an inferior court or tribunal from continuing a proceeding beyond its authority), and quo warranto (to oust a person from a public office they hold unlawfully). All five appear by name in Article 32 and Article 226. **What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?** Article 32 is the Supreme Court's writ power and is itself a fundamental right, but it can be used only to enforce fundamental rights. Article 226 is each High Court's writ power, and it is wider because it covers both fundamental rights and "any other purpose," meaning a High Court can also enforce ordinary legal and statutory rights. The two are concurrent, so a person whose fundamental right is breached may approach either court directly. **Which writ is used against illegal detention?** Habeas corpus. It commands whoever holds a person to produce them before the court and justify the custody. If the detention is unlawful, the court orders release. It can run against the state and against private persons, and a relative, friend, or even a stranger can file it on behalf of the detained person. **What is the difference between certiorari and prohibition?** Both control inferior courts and tribunals on the same grounds, mainly want or excess of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice. The difference is timing. Prohibition is preventive and issues while the proceeding is still pending, to stop it. Certiorari is corrective and issues after the decision is made, to quash it. This line was drawn in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1955). **Can a writ be issued against a private body?** Mandamus can, where the private body performs a public function, especially with state aid. In Andi Mukta v. V.R. Rudani (1989) the Supreme Court held that a public duty need not be statutory, and that a privately managed but government-aided college performing the public function of education could be subject to mandamus. Habeas corpus also runs against private persons who unlawfully confine someone. **Who can file a quo warranto petition?** Any member of the public, because quo warranto protects the public interest in lawful officeholding. The petitioner need not be personally aggrieved and need not claim the office themselves. The office in question must be a public office of a substantive character, and the petitioner must show the holder occupies it without lawful authority, as set out in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (1965). **Is the right to a writ ever taken away?** The right under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and is one of the most protected in the Constitution. During the Emergency, the Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur (1976) held that habeas corpus could be denied while Article 21 enforcement was suspended, a decision long regarded as a grave error. That ruling was expressly overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), which accepted Justice Khanna's dissent and confirmed that personal liberty and the rule of law endure even in an Emergency.