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
Full viewThis 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/quasi‑judicial 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/quasi‑judicial 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.
- Defines the scope and respondents of the writ of prohibition—it is issued to stop lower courts or quasi-judicial bodies from proceeding.
- If prohibition is directed at lower courts/quasi‑judicial bodies, the passage does not support issuing it to a legislature to compel law‑making.
- Explains that the remedy is available when a lower court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction and that parties move to higher courts for prohibition.
- Again indicates the target of prohibition is judicial/tribunal action, not legislative bodies such as Parliament or State Assemblies.
States that the Supreme Court (Art.32) and High Courts (Art.226) are the institutions empowered to issue writs (including prohibition).
A student could combine this with the specific target and subject-matter limits of writs to ask whether a legislature is a permissible target for such writs.
Explains the nature and usual targets of prohibition — it is issued against courts or tribunals exercising judicial or quasi‑judicial powers, to stop ultra vires proceedings.
A student could use this rule to assess whether a legislature (parliament/assembly) fits the description of a court/tribunal that prohibition traditionally targets.
Notes the Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcement of fundamental rights, while High Courts have broader writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
One could check whether ordering a legislature to 'pass a law on Prohibition' is an enforcement of a fundamental right (likely not) or falls within the broader discretionary scope of a High Court.
Emphasises Article 226 is discretionary and that Article 32 is primarily as defender/guarantor of fundamental rights — indicating different remedial reach between SC and HCs.
A student might infer the Supreme Court's remedial reach is narrower and therefore less likely to be used to command legislative action compared with High Courts, then verify with constitutional limits on judicial compulsion of legislature.
States courts can declare invalid any law or action contrary to the Constitution (judicial review), but frames this as reviewing validity rather than directing legislature to enact laws.
Use this distinction to evaluate whether judicial powers are limited to invalidation/review, making a proactive order to 'pass a law' atypical and requiring further legal basis.
- Explicitly lists 'prohibition' among writs that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) can issue.
- States that only the Supreme Court and High Courts have power to issue these writs, establishing institutional authority to grant prohibition.
- Defines prohibition as issued against courts/tribunals to prevent ultra vires orders or decisions.
- Specifies prohibition is available during the pendency of proceedings and before an order is made, i.e., to stop continuation.
- Defines prohibition as a writ issued by a higher court when a lower court is considering a case beyond its jurisdiction.
- Directly links prohibition to restricting continuation of jurisdiction-exceeding proceedings by a lower court.
- Article 32 and Article 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue writs including prohibition.
- Both courts are therefore formally vested with the power to issue a writ of prohibition (writ-list explicitly includes prohibition).
- High Courts possess a wider writ jurisdiction than the Supreme Court under the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court's writ power is limited to enforcement of Fundamental Rights, implying restrictions on when it can issue prohibition against executive action.
- Prohibition and certiorari are normally directed against courts or tribunals exercising judicial/quasi‑judicial power, not general executive policy.
- Prohibition is a preventive remedy available while proceedings are pending, distinguishing its typical target and timing from remedies against executive policy.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct hit from Laxmikanth (7th Ed), Chapter 8 'Fundamental Rights' > Writs-Types and Scope.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) and the specific distinction between 'Preventive' vs 'Curative' judicial interventions.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Target Matrix': 1. Habeas Corpus: State + Private individuals. 2. Mandamus: Public Officials/Bodies (Not Private, Not President/Governor). 3. Prohibition: Judicial/Quasi-judicial bodies only (During proceedings). 4. Certiorari: Judicial/Quasi-judicial + Administrative (After order is passed). 5. Quo-Warranto: Statutory/Constitutional Public Office.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not just memorize 'Prohibition = To Forbid'. You must ask: Forbid WHOM? (Only lower courts/tribunals) and WHEN? (Before the final order). This specific constraint eliminates Executive officers (Option A) and Legislatures (Option B).
The Constitution recognises five writs that the Supreme Court and High Courts may issue, including prohibition, as part of remedies for rights enforcement.
High-yield for UPSC questions on fundamental rights and remedies; links to Articles 32 and 226 and the supervisory role of superior courts. Mastering this lets you identify appropriate judicial remedies in fact-based and conceptual questions about constitutional protections.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 98
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RICHTTO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES > p. 97
Prohibition is used to stop a court or tribunal from acting beyond its jurisdiction during proceedings, whereas certiorari is used later to quash an order already made.
Essential for distinguishing preventive and corrective judicial remedies in administrative and judicial review problems; helps answer scenario-based MCQs and mains questions on the scope and timing of judicial intervention.
- 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
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES > p. 41
The High Courts' writ jurisdiction is broader under Article 226, while the Supreme Court's writ power under Article 32 is primarily for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Crucial for forum-selection issues in constitutional law questions; links to basic-structure jurisprudence and practical guidance on when to approach the Supreme Court versus a High Court. Useful for both prelims and mains when analysing remedies and judicial reach.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 34: High Court > til Writ Jurisdiction > p. 358
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > til Writ Jurisdiction > p. 358
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RICHTTO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES > p. 97
The Supreme Court and High Courts are the constitutional fora empowered to issue writs including prohibition under Articles 32 and 226.
High-yield for questions on separation of powers and remedies for rights: knowing which courts can issue writs and the constitutional basis helps answer whether judicial compulsion of other branches is permissible. This links to judicial review, constitutional remedies, and limits on judicial power.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 98
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 99
The Supreme Court's writ power is primarily for enforcement of fundamental rights, while High Courts have a wider discretionary writ jurisdiction.
Essential for distinguishing remedies available at national and state levels; helps tackle questions on locus, remedies under Articles 32/226, and instances where High Courts can act beyond fundamental-rights enforcement.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 34: High Court > til Writ Jurisdiction > p. 358
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > til Writ Jurisdiction > p. 358
Prohibition and certiorari are remedies directed against courts/tribunals exercising judicial or quasi‑judicial powers — prohibition prevents ultra vires orders while certiorari quashes them after being made.
Crucial to conclude whether these writs can be used against legislative bodies: mastering their target (judicial/quasi‑judicial bodies), timing, and purpose lets aspirants assess applicability of writs in separation‑of‑powers scenarios and factual permutations in paper and interviews.
- 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
Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) are the constitutional forums empowered to issue writs including prohibition.
High-yield for questions on constitutional remedies; helps distinguish the institutional basis for writ jurisdiction and frame answers about who may issue which writs. Connects to topics on enforcement of fundamental rights and the hierarchy of courts.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 98
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RICHTTO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES > p. 97
The 'Next Logical Question' is on the exception to Locus Standi. For most writs, only the 'aggrieved person' can file. However, for **Quo-Warranto**, *any* interested person can seek the remedy, not just the aggrieved. Also, remember: Mandamus cannot be issued against the President or State Governors (Article 361).
Use the 'Hierarchy Logic'. A 'Writ' is a high command. 'Prohibition' implies stopping a legal process.
- Option A (Officer): You 'command' an officer (Mandamus), you don't usually 'prohibit' them via this specific writ.
- Option B (Parliament): Courts cannot order Parliament to legislate (Constitutional impossibility).
- Option D (Policy): This is Judicial Review, not a specific writ.
- Option C (Lower Court): Fits the hierarchy (Higher Court controls Lower Court). Matches the legal meaning of 'staying proceedings'.
Link this to **GS-2 (Separation of Powers)**. Option B (Directing Parliament to pass a law) violates the core doctrine of Separation of Powers. Courts cannot issue a writ of Mandamus or Prohibition to a legislature to enact a specific law. This is a standard argument in Judicial Overreach debates.