Prerogative writ

Last updated

"Prerogative writ" is a historic term for a writ (official order) that directs the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court. [1] It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. The term may be considered antiquated, and the traditional six comprising writs are often called the extraordinary writs and described as extraordinary remedies. [2]

Contents

Six writs are traditionally classified as prerogative writs: [2]

Additionally, scire facias , one of the extraordinary writs, was once known as a prerogative writ. [3]

England and Wales

The prerogative writs are a means by which the Crown, acting through its courts, effects control over inferior courts or public authorities throughout the kingdom. The writs are issued in the name of the Crown, who is the nominal plaintiff, on behalf of the applicant.

The prerogative writs other than habeas corpus are discretionary remedies, and have been known as prerogative orders in England and Wales since 1938. The writs of quo warranto and procedendo are now obsolete, and the orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition are under the new Civil Procedure Rules 1998 known as "quashing orders", "mandatory orders" and "prohibiting orders" respectively.

The writ of habeas corpus is still known by that name.

India

The declaration of fundamental rights would be meaningless unless these rights can be enforced at the instance of the persons on whom they are conferred. The Constitution itself has laid down the following provisions for the enforcement of the fundamental rights.

  1. Any act of the executive or of the Legislature which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights shall be void and the courts are empowered to declare such act as void. (Article 13)
  2. The Supreme Court and the High Courts are empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights against any authority of the State.

Article 12 has defined "State" to include the Government and Parliament of India, and the Government and Legislature of the States, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The expression "other authorities" has been interpreted to cover even business organisations like LIC and therefore such organisations also are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the courts.

  1. A proceeding under Article 32 is described as a constitutional remedy and the right to bring such proceedings before the Supreme Court is itself a fundamental right.

Pakistan

Article 199 of the Constitution confers wide powers of judicial review on Provincial High Courts in Pakistan. As compared to powers conferred upon the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution to the High Court are wider and varied.

The orders which a High Court may issue under Article 199 are also known as writs. They are the writs of prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto.

Mr. Justice Rustam Kayani, the former Chief Justice of West Pakistan High Court was a great admirer of the writ jurisdiction. At the time of his installation as Chief Justice in 1958, he emphasised: "Mandamus and Certiorari are flowers of paradise and the whole length and breadth of Pakistan is not wide enough to contain their perfume".[ citation needed ]

United States

In the United States federal court system, the issuance of writs is authorized by the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C.   § 1651). The language of the statute was left deliberately vague in order to allow the courts flexibility in determining what writs are necessary "in aid of their jurisdiction". Use of writs at the trial court level has been greatly curtailed by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its state court counterparts, which specify that there is "one form of action".

The Supreme Court of the United States grants certiorari, while most state supreme courts grant review.

Mandamus has been replaced in the United States district courts [ citation needed ] and many state trial courts by injunction. In the federal system, it is generally available only to the federal courts of appeals,[ citation needed ] which issue writs of mandamus to lower courts and administrative hearing panels, while some state systems still allow trial courts to issue writs of mandamus or mandate directly to government officials.

Prohibition is also generally limited to appellate courts, who use it to prevent lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction.

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law by which a report can be made to a court in the events of unlawful detention or imprisonment, requesting that the court order the person's custodian to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Writ</span> Formal written order issued by an entity

In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, subpoenas, and certiorari are common types of writs, but many forms exist and have existed.

In common-law jurisprudence, procedendo is one of the prerogative writs. It is a writ that sends a case from an appellate court to a lower court with an order to proceed to judgment.

The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to what that judgment should be.

In the English-American common law, quo warranto is a prerogative writ issued by a court which orders someone to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold. The writ of quo warranto still exists in the United States, although it is uncommon, but it has been abolished in England and Wales. Quo warranto is also used, with slightly different effect, in the Philippines.

In common law legal systems, original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Philippines</span> Highest court in the Philippines

The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema, is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nepal</span> Highest court in Nepal

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It is designated as the court of record by the Constitution of Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty Judges and a Chief Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh</span> Highest court of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh

The High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh popularly known as the 'High Court' is one of the two divisions of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, the other division being the Appellate Division. It consists of the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and the Judges of the High Court Division.

In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus. Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peshawar High Court</span> Provincial high court in Pakistan

The Peshawar High Court is the provincial and highest judicial institution of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan. It is located in the provincial capital Peshawar. The Parliament passed a bill extending the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (SC) and the Peshawar High Court to Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), one of a handful of reforms paving the way for a merger of the tribal areas with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

In most legal systems of the Spanish-speaking world, the writ of amparo is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. The amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington Court of Appeals</span> Intermediate appellate court of Washington State

The Washington Court of Appeals is the intermediate level appellate court for the state of Washington. The court is divided into three divisions. Division I is based in Seattle, Division II is based in Tacoma, and Division III is based in Spokane.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore administrative law</span> Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Georgia Superior Courts</span>

The Superior Court is Georgia's general jurisdiction trial court. It has exclusive, constitutional, authority over felony cases, divorce, equity and cases regarding title to land. The exclusive jurisdiction of this court also covers such matters as declaratory judgments, habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition. The Superior Court corrects errors made by lower courts by issuing writs of certiorari; for some lower courts, the right to direct review by the Superior Court applies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian High Courts Act 1861</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Indian High Courts Act 1861 was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to authorize the Crown to create High Courts in the Indian colony. Queen Victoria created the High Courts in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay by Letters Patent in 1862. These High Courts would become the precursors to the High Courts in the modern day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The Act was passed after the First War of Independence of 1857 and consolidated the parallel legal systems of the Crown and the East India Company.

The High Court of West Pakistan was the high court for the province of West Pakistan during the days of one unit from 1956 to 1971 until the separation of East Pakistan.

In Canada, judicial review is the process that allows courts to supervise administrative tribunals' exercise of their statutory powers. Judicial review of administrative action is only available for decisions made by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. The process allows individuals to challenge state actions, and ensures that decisions made by administrative tribunals follow the rule of law. The practice is meant to ensure that powers delegated by government to boards and tribunals are not abused, and offers legal recourse when that power is misused, or the law is misapplied. Judicial review is meant to be a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.

The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and law without precedent. It further determines the rules of procedure for lower courts, and its members sit on electoral tribunals.

References

  1. Hill, Gerald N.; Hill, Kathleen (2002). The people's law dictionary: taking the mystery out of legal language. New York: MJF Books. ISBN   9781567315530.
  2. 1 2 Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Vol. 8 (2nd ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 68. ISBN   9780787663742.
  3. Antieau, C. J. (1987). The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies: Habeas Corpus and the Other Common Law Writs. Vol. II. Oceana. p. 802.