Question map
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to :
Explanation
A Writ of Prohibition is issued by the Supreme Court or any High Court to any lower court or quasi-judicial body in order to stop them from further proceeding.[2] When a lower court or tribunal takes up a hearing of a matter on which it has no jurisdiction, the person against whom the hearing is taking place can move to the higher court for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the lower court from proceeding over the issue.[3] Prohibition is available during the pendency of the proceedings and before the order is made[4], distinguishing it from certiorari which is issued after an order has been made. Therefore, option C correctly describes the writ of prohibition as an order to lower courts prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case. Options A, B, and D are incorrect as prohibition is specifically a remedy against judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not against government officers, legislatures, or government policies directly.
Sources- [4] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Scope of the Writs: I. Habeas corpus. > p. 158
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis is a non-negotiable 'Sitter' directly from the Holy Trinity of Polity (Laxmikanth, DD Basu, NCERT). If you get this wrong, you are statistically out of the race. The strategy is simple: Master the 'Target' (Who) and 'Timing' (When) for all 5 writs, not just their English translations.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court or High Courts issue a writ of prohibition directed at a government officer to prohibit him from taking a particular action?
- Statement 2: Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court or High Courts issue a writ of prohibition to Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly directing it to pass a law on Prohibition?
- Statement 3: Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court or High Courts issue a writ of prohibition to a lower court prohibiting the continuation of proceedings in a case?
- Statement 4: Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court or High Courts issue a writ of prohibition to the Government prohibiting it from following an unconstitutional policy?
- Directly states who the writ of prohibition is issued to (lower courts/quasi-judicial bodies).
- Implies the writ's purpose is to stop proceedings of those bodies, not to command or restrain individual government officers.
- Confirms that both the Supreme Court and High Courts have writ jurisdiction (including prohibition).
- Explains the writ of prohibition's purpose as 'to prohibit or stop', supporting its role as restraining proceedings rather than ordering individual executive actions.
States that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto (i.e., prohibition is within their recognized powers).
A student could combine this with definitions of each writ to ask whether 'prohibition' as listed applies beyond courts/tribunals to executive officers.
Explains that prohibition and certiorari are issued against courts or tribunals exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers and distinguishes timing and purpose (prohibition to prevent ultra vires action during proceedings).
One could extend this by checking whether a government officer is exercising judicial/quasiâjudicial functions (so prohibition might apply) or is purely executive (so prohibition may not).
Defines mandamus as a writ against an office holder failing to perform a legal duty, and defines prohibition as a writ by a higher court when a lower court goes beyond its jurisdiction.
A student can use this to distinguish when to seek mandamus (against officers) versus prohibition (against lower courts), testing whether prohibition is normally directed at non-executive actors.
Notes tribunals are placed under control/supervision of superior courts and that certiorari can be used to quash tribunal orders infringing fundamental rights, indicating supervisory remedies focus on judicial/quasiâjudicial bodies.
Use this pattern to infer that writs like prohibition/certiorari are targeted at bodies doing adjudicatory work, so one should check whether the government officer acts in such a capacity before assuming prohibition lies against them.
Points out the Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcement of fundamental rights (limiting its writ jurisdiction), while High Courts have broader writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
A student could test whether a prohibition against an officer would be framed as enforcement of a fundamental right (for SC) or as other legal relief (for HC) to see which court could entertain it.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.