The Writ of Certiorari

In one line

Certiorari is the writ that brings up a decision already made and quashes it.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: certiorari, meaning to be certified, is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, tribunal or authority requiring the record of a decision to be transmitted so that it may be quashed, on the grounds of want or excess of jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

The foundational statement

T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, worked in [The Five Writs and Where They Came From], holds that an Indian court may issue an order in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate cases so long as the broad and fundamental principles regulating the writ are adhered to; that it lies to review judicial acts, an expression which includes the quasi-judicial functions of administrative bodies but not purely ministerial acts; and that in granting it the superior court does not exercise appellate powers.

Against whom, and the collapse of the old limit

The traditional requirement was a body with a duty to act judicially, which is why Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222, refused it against a requisition. That limit went with A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, and certiorari now lies against an administrative body which determines rights, provided the decision is not legislative and not purely ministerial.

It does not lie against a superior court of record: Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1.

The three grounds

One, want or excess of jurisdiction. The body had no power over the person, the place, the subject matter or on the facts required to exist; or it exceeded the power it had. This is worked in [Jurisdictional Error and the Collateral Fact Doctrine].

Two, violation of the principles of natural justice. No notice, no hearing, bias, a decision by one who did not hear, reliance on undisclosed material. Module III.

Three, error of law apparent on the face of the record. A mistake of law that appears from the order and the proceedings themselves and needs no long argument to establish. This is worked in [Error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record].

To those three the modern law adds a fourth in substance: a finding of fact based on no evidence at all, which is treated as an error of law.

The great limit: it is not an appeal

Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233.

Facts. An election tribunal decided an election petition and then became functus officio. The losing side sought certiorari, and it was argued both that Article 329(b) barred the High Court and that certiorari could not issue against a tribunal that no longer existed.