INDIAN

CONSTITUTIO
NAL LAW

[WRITS ……………….
A PREROGATIVE REMEDY]
Date of taking up the Project - 3 September 2009
Date of Submission of Project – 11 September 2009

Submitted to –
Mr. Devender Sharma
Department of Laws,
Punjab University

Submitted by –
Sonia Chawla Madan
Roll no. 336/09
 Page 2 of 14

LL.B ( Ist Semester)

Punjab University.
 Page 3 of 14

Table of Index –

1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………3
2. Meaning of Writ…………………………………………………………..3
3. Meaning of Prerogative Writ…..................................................................3
4. Prerogative Writ and Judicial writs………………………………………4
5. Specific Writs…………………………………………………………….5-9
6. Prerogative nature of Writs………………………………………………9-10
7. Conditions for prerogative writs…………………………………………11-12
8. Scope of Prerogative Writs……………………………………………….12-13
 Page 4 of 14

Introduction: -
The Constitution of India has granted certain fundamental right to its citizens.
Law made by the Parliament and State Legislature conferred various rights to the citizens
and persons and had also conferred duties and obligations to the various authorities. The
writ jurisdiction is for the enforcement of those rights and authorities can be compelled to
perform their duties, if they make any default. The jurisdiction is available to keep the
powers within their legal limits, so as to protect the citizens and persons against their
abuse. 1
Any provision in any constitution for fundamental rights is meaningless, unless
there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality
of such rights is tested only to judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance.

Meaning of Writ: -
The expression ‘writ’ has not been defined in the Constitution. However,
according to the dictionary2 meaning, it is “a formal order in writing issued under seal, in
the name of a sovereign, government, court or other authority commanding an officer or
other person to whom it is issued to do or refrain from doing some act specified therein.”

Blackstone described a writ as “a mandatory letter from the King in Parliament,

sealed with his great seal, directed to the Sheriff of the County wherein the injury is
committed, or supposed so to be, requiring him to command the wrongdoer or party
accused, either to do justice to he complainant or else to appear in Court, and answer the
accusation against him.”

Meaning of Prerogative Writ: -

Prerogative writs are writs, which were originally issued only at the suit of the King, but
which were later on made available to the subjects also. They were called “prerogative”
because they were conceived as being intimately connected with the rights of the Crown.3
A prerogative writ was issued only on probable cause being shown to the satisfaction of
the court that why extraordinary power of the crown is required to be exercised in favor
of the applicant.

It was called ‘prerogative’ since it was issued by the crown as a fountain of

justice, where there was no statutory source of redress and the crown used to issue orders
by way of his prerogative.

In various judgments of the Supreme Court of India and/or High Courts the
remedy under Writ jurisdiction has been described as a prerogative writ. Blackstone in
his commentaries on the laws of England has stated that prerogative is “that special
preeminence which the King has, over the above all other persons, and out of ordinary
1
Writ remedies, Justice B.P. Banerjee, 3rd Edition, page 15.
2
Webster’s New Twentieth Century dictionary, 2nd Edition.
3
De Smith: Judicial review of Administrative Action (4th Edn.),V.G Ramachandran’s , Law of Writs (6th
Edn.)
 Page 5 of 14

course the common law, in right of his royal dignity”. The term ‘prerogative’ then refers
to power, which are unique to the sovereign and which the king or the Queen has by
common law as opposed to statute. The prerogative powers are sometimes referred to as
“Royal prerogative”, this is technically correct; as in law those powers belong to
Monarch. The ‘Royal prerogative’ may be defined as comprising those attributes peculiar
to the Crown which are derived from any law, not statute, and which still survive. It
signifies in its etymology something, that is required to demanded before or in preference
to all others and hence it follows that it must be in its nature singular and eccentrical, and
that it can only be applied to those rights and capacities which the King enjoys alone, in
contradiction to others and not to those which he enjoys in common with any of his
subjects; for if once any one prerogative of the Crown could be held common in the
subject it would cease to be prerogative any longer.4

Prerogative Writs and Judicial Writs: -

The prerogative writs or writs of grace were distinguished from “writs of rights”,
“writs of course” or “judicial writs” inasmuch as while a writ of right should be obtained
by a suitor as a matter of right, prerogative writ was issued only on some probable cause
being shown to the satisfaction of the Court “why the extraordinary power of the Crown
is called in to the party’s assistance”.5 Therefore, Prerogative Writs are a subset of class
of writs, those that are to be heard ahead of any other cases on a court’s docket except
other such writs.

Under English law, there are two types of writs:

(i) Judicial procedural writs, such as, writ of summons, writ of motion, etc.,
which are issued as a matter of course; and

(ii) Substantive writs, often described as “High Prerogative Writs”, such as,
writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto,
etc.

SPECIFIC WRITS

1. Habeas Corpus: -
A writ of Habeas Corpus is in the nature of an order calling upon the
person who has detained another to produce the latter before the Court, in order to
let the court know on one ground he has been confined and set to him free, if there
is no legal justification for the imprisonment. The word “Habeas Corpus” literally
means “to have a body’. By this writ, therefore, the court secures the body of a
person who has been imprisoned to be brought before itself to obtain knowledge

4
Writ remedies, Justice B.P. Banerjee, 3rd Edition, page 34.
5
Blackstone, Commentaries, vol III, p 131-132,V.G Ramachandran’s , Law of Writs (6th Edn.)
 Page 6 of 14

of the reason why he has been imprisoned and to set him free if there is no lawful
justification of the imprisonment.6

a). Locus standi:- A writ of Habeas Corpus may be sought by the person who
is arrested or detailed. However, as observed in Bandhua Mukti Morcha
Vs. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161,”whenever any person is wrongfully
and illegally deprived of his liberty, it is open to any body who is
interested in the person to move this court (Supreme Court) under article
32 of the Constitution of India for his release.”

b) Against whom writ may be issued.:- The writ may be addressed to any
person whatever, an official or a private person who has another person in
his custody .It may be issued against the person who has physical custody
or even constructive custody of the prisoner. It may also be issued to an
authority that has control over the imprisonment who can order the release
of the prisoner.7

c) Territorial jurisdiction8 :- The jurisdiction of Supreme court under Art 32

of the constitution has no territorial limitation. It extends over all
authorities within territory of India and also covers those authorities
functioning outside, provided they are under the control of the
Government of India. So far, as High Courts are concerned, after the
Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963 under article 226 of the
Constitution, every High Court has territorial Jurisdiction over a person,
Government or authority residing within the jurisdiction of that High
Court, or Within whose Jurisdiction the cause of action in whole or in part
arises.9

d) Grounds:- The different purpose for which the writ of habeas corpus is
available may, accordingly, be stated as follows:-

1. For the enforcement of fundamental rights. It has already been explained

that under our Constitution the right of personal liberty is guaranteed
against the State by Article 21 which says that ‘no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law’. Hence, if the Executive has arrested and detained any
person without the authority of any law or in contravention of the
procedure established by the law which authorities the detention, or the
law which authorizes the imprisonment is itself invalid or unconstitutional,
the High Court or the Supreme Court may issue a writ of habeas corpus
against the authority which has kept the person in custody and order the
release of the person under detention.

6
Introduction to Constitution of India, Dr. Durga Das Basu, 19th Edn, p 130.
7
R v Crewe. (1910) 2 KB 576, Burnando v Ford , 1892 AC 326.
8
V.G Ramachandran’s , Law of Writs (6th Edn.), Volume II , pg. 1033
9
Vishambhar v Governmnet of U.P, AIR 1945.
 Page 7 of 14

2. It will also issue where the order of imprisonment or detention is ultra

vires the statute which authorizes the imprisonment or detention.10

e) Exceptions:- The writ of habeas corpus is, however, not issued in the
following cases -

(i) Where the person against whom the writ is issued or the person who is
detained is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

(ii) To secure the release of a person who has been imprisoned by a court of
law on a criminal charge.11

(iii) To interfere with a proceeding for contempt by a court of record or by

Parliament.

2. Mandamus: - Mandamus literally means a command. It demands some activity on the

part of a body or person to whom it is addressed. In short, it commands the person to
whom it is addressed to perform some public or quasi-public legal duty which he has
refused to perform and a performance of which cannot be enforced by any other adequate
legal remedy.12

a). Locus standi:- As a general rule, any person having an interest in the
subject matter of the petition may apply for a Writ of mandamus.13

b) Against whom writ may be issued: - In India mandamus will lie not only
against officers and other persons who are bound to do a public duty but
also against the Government itself. It includes all such public authorities as
legislatures, Courts and Tribunals, local authorities, Corporations,
Universities and Other educational Institutions, Public officials etc.

c) Grounds14:-

i) Whenever a public officer or a Government has done some act

which violates the fundamental right of a person, the court would
issue a writ of mandamus restraining the public officer or the
Government from enforcing the order or doing that act against the
person whose fundamental right has been infringed.

ii) Apart from the enforcement of fundamental rights, mandamus is

available from a High Court for various other purposes, e.g.-

10
Jananrdha Vs. State of Hyderabad (1951) S.C.R. 344 Introduction to the Constitution of India Dr. Durga
Das Basu 19th Edition page 130.
11
Jananrdha Vs. State of Hyderabad (1951) S.C.R. 344
12
Introduction to the Constitution of India Dr. Durga Das Basu 19th Edition page 131.
13
Wade: Administrative law, (2004), p. 675-81
14
Introduction to the Constitution of India Dr. Durga Das Basu 19th Edition page 131.
 Page 8 of 14

1) To enforce the performance of a statutory duty where a public officer has

got a power conferred by the Constitution or a statute. The court may issue a
mandamus directing him to exercise the power in case he refuses to do it.

2) The writ will also lie to compel any person to perform his public duty
where the duty is imposed by the Constitution or a statute or statutory
instrument.

3) To compel a court or judicial tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction when it

has refused to exercise it.

4) To direct a public official or the Government not to enforce a law which is

unconstitutional.

d) Exceptions:15 - Mandamus will not be granted against the following persons:-

i) The President, or the Governor of a State, for the exercise and

performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or
purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers
and duties (Art. 361, post)

ii) Mandamus does not lie against a private individual or body whether
incorporated or not except where the State is in collusion with such private
party, in the matter of contravention of any provision of the Constitution or a
statute or a statutory instrument.

3. Prohibition:-A writ of prohibition is a writ issued by the Supreme Court or

a High Court to an inferior court forbidding the latter to continue proceedings therein
in excess of its jurisdiction or to unsurp a jurisdiction with which it is not legally
vested. In other words, the object of the writ is to compel inferior courts to keep
themselves within the limits of their jurisdiction. The writ of prohibition differs from
the writ of mandamus in that while mandamus commands activity, prohibition
commands inactivity.

a). Locus standi:- de Smith16 states “ if a defect of jurisdiction was apparent

on the face of the proceedings, in other words was patent, the application for
prohibition might be brought not only by a party aggrieved but also by a
‘stranger’ to the proceedings, and the court was obliged to allow the application
and was not entitled to have regard to the conduct of the applicant.”

b) Against whom writ may be issued: - Prohibition is issued only against

judicial or quasi judicial authorities and is not available against a public
officer who is not vested the judicial functions.

15
Introduction to the Constitution of India Dr. Durga Das Basu 19th Edition page 132.
16
Judicial Review of Administrative action, (1995), pp. 622-23.
 Page 9 of 14

c) Grounds17:- Essentially, a writ of prohibition can be issued When a

subordinate court or inferior tribunal acts without or in excess of its
jurisdiction, or act sin violation of principles of natural justice, or acts
under a law which is ultra vires, or acts in contravention of fundamental
rights or there is an error of law apparent on the face of record..

4. Certiorari:- While prohibition is available at an earlier stage, Certiorari is

available at a later stage, on similar ground. Certiorari literally means “to certify”.
Like prohibition, the writ of certiorari is also a jurisdictional writ and is issued against
judicial or quasi-judicial authorities on similar grounds, i.e. excess of jurisdiction or
violation of the principles of natural justice. Certiorari is a remedial writ and is issued
to quash an order or decision which has been made without jurisdiction or in violation
of the principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, issued after the completion of the
proceedings.

a) Locus Standi. – Ordinarily, the party whose rights are affected may apply
under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution for a writ of Certiorari.18 However, if
the matter to be reviewed is one which affects public at large, any individual
citizen may apply for certiorari.

b) Against whom writ may be issued : - A writ of Certiorari will be issued

against Judicial and Quasi judicial authorities and not purely administrative or
executive bodies.

5. Quo Warranto:- Quo Warranto means “what is your authority”. The writ is
issued to call upon the holder of a public office to show to the Court, under what
authority he is holding that office. Quo Warranto is a proceeding whereby the court
inquires into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to a public office, and to
oust him from its enjoyment, if the claim be not well founded.

a). Locus standi :- Any person may challenge the validity of an appointment
of public office whether any fundamental right or other legal right of his has been
infringed or not.19 But the court must be satisfied that the person so applying is
bona fide and there is necessity in public interest to declare judicially that there is
an unsurpation of public office.20

b) Against whom writ may be issued: - Quo Warranto is issued against a

person who claims or usurps a public office, franchise or liberty.

c) Grounds: - The purpose of the writ is to prevent a person from holding an

office which he is not legally entitled to hold.

17
.G Ramachandran’s , Law of Writs (6th Edn.), Volume II , pg. 1185.
18
Chiranjit lal v Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41, Calcutta Gas Co. v State of W.B A.I.R 1962 SC 1044.
19
Surendra Mohan v Gopal Chandra , AIR 1952, Ori 35
20
Deshpande v State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 Hyd 36.
 Page 10 of 14

The PREROGATIVE NATURE OF WRITS:-

In England prerogative writs by the very nature of their origin in the royal
prerogative, are considered and treated as discretionary in nature. English experience,
however, shows that the subject has a right to demand them in certain circumstances. De
Smith States: “Where there is an alternative procedure which will provide the applicant
with a satisfactory remedy the courts will usually insist on the applicant exhausting that
remedy before seeking judicial review. In so doing the court is coming to a discretionary
decision.” 21

The courts in their discretion will not normally make the remedy of judicial review
available where there is an alternative remedy by way of appeal. However, judicial
review may be granted where the alternative statutory remedy is ‘nowhere near so
convenient, beneficial and effectual’ or ‘where there is no other equally effective and
convenient remedy’. This is particularly so where the decision in question is liable to be
upset as a matter of law because it is clearly made without jurisdiction or in consequence
of an error of law.

Factors to be taken into account by a court when deciding whether to grant relief
by judicial review when an alternative remedy is available are: Whether the alternative
statutory remedy will resolve the question at issue fully and directly; whether the
statutory procedure would be quicker, or slower than the procedure by way of judicial
review, and whether the matter depends on some particular or technical knowledge which
is more readily available to the alternative appellate body. Further, a court should bear in
mind the purpose of judicial review and the essential difference between appeal and
review.”22

Whether an alternative remedy available to aggrieved party is suitable, adequate

and equally efficacious or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The
onus, however, lies on the applicant to show that the alternative remedy available to him
is not suitable adequate or equally efficacious.

WHEN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY BARS RELIEF:-

Where an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to a litigant, he

should pursue that remedy and may not invoke special jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a prerogative writ. No doubt, it is a rule of discretion and not of jurisdiction.
However, in the following cases, the High Court may refuse to grant relief under Article
226, in case of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.

a) Infringement of non fundamental rights:- Every High Court has

power to issue writs, directions or orders under Article 226 for two purposes,
namely: (1) for the enforcement of fundamental rights; and (2) for any other
purposes. Regarding protection of fundamental rights, like the Supreme Court,

21
(Judicial Review of Administration Action, 5th Edition page 813).
22
Halsbury’s laws of England, (4th Edn), Vol1, pp94-95
 Page 11 of 14

every High Court is also bound to enforce and protect them. However, with
regard to the rights other than fundamental rights, the jurisdiction of the High
Court is discretionary under Article 226 when an alternative, suitable adequate
and equally efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

Thus, if a permit has been refused under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939, a person aggrieved may take appropriate action under the
provisions of the Act and a petition under Article 226 may not be entertained.
23
Similarly, if services of an employee have been wrongfully terminated, he may
institute an action in accordance with law and may not directly approach a High
Court by filing a petition.24

b) Statutory remedies: Where a stature creates a right or liability and

also prescribes the remedy or procedure for the enforcement of that right or
liability, resort must be had to the said statutory remedy before invoking
extraordinary and prerogative writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226.

Thus, if an aggrieved person has right to file an appeal or revision

application under the relevant statute, the High Court may refuse to entertain a
petition under Article 226. 25

c) Other remedies:- Even if the relevant statute does not specifically provide the
remedy of an appeal or revision, the High Court may consider as to whether any
other remedy is available to an aggrieved person. Thus, the High Court may
refuse to grant relief in favour of a person who may obtain adequate and
appropriate relief by filing a civil suit, or by taking execution proceedings, or by
filing an application, or by making a representation, or by raising a dispute under
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, or by taking appropriate proceedings under the
provisions of the Constitution.

It should not, however, be forgotten that the existence of an alternative remedy is

not an absolute bar to the granting of a writ under Article 226 but ‘is a thing to be taken
into consideration in the matter of granting writs”.26 In exceptional circumstances, the
High Court may grant relief under Article 226, even if an alternative remedy is available
to the aggrieved person.

In Thansingh Nathmal v Superintendent of Taxes AIR 1964 SC1419: (1964) 6 SCR 654,
the appellant was a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. He submitted returns to the
Superintendent of Taxes but failed to produce books of accounts to substantiate returns.
He was, therefore, held liable to pay tax. Though the relevant act provided machinery
and a ‘hierarchy of taxing tribunal’, the assessee moved the High Court under Article
23
Veerappa v Raman &Raman Ltd. AIR 1952 SC 192, V.G Ramachandran’s , Law of Writs (6th Edn.),
Volume I , pg. 214
24
Union of India v T.R Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882, V.G Ramachandran’s , Law of Writs (6th Edn.), Volume
I , pg. 214
25
Rashid v I.T.I Comn, AIR 1954 Sc 207, 210, Thansingh Nathmal v Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964
SC1419.
26
Rashid Ahmed v Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163, 165:1950 SCR 566.
 Page 12 of 14

226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition. It was held that ‘ where it
is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in other
jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court
normally will not permit by entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying
to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.’

CONDITIONS FOR ISSUING PREROGATIVE WRITS-

a) Infringement of fundamental rights: - If the petitioner satisfies the Supreme Court

that his fundamental right has been violated, it is not only the right of power but the duty
and obligation of the Supreme Court to see that the petitioner’s fundamental right is
protected and safe-guarded. The jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with a writ
petition filed under Article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental rights is substantially
the same as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in entertaining a writ petition under
Article 32.

b) Remedies which cannot be said to be alternative: - The remedies which are

discretionary in nature and cannot be claimed as of right cannot be said to be alternative
remedies under Article 226. (Bharat Kala Bhandar Vs. Municipal Committee,(Dhaman
Gaon) AIR 1966 SC 249). “The alternative remedy could never be a general remedy of a
civil suit which is by way of collateral attach and which would be available in every case
for ultra vires orders unless it is specifically exclude.” (Supra N.84 at page 123 (AIR);
726 (GLR).

c) Remedies which cannot be said to be adequate or equally efficacious: - Where the

remedy is illusory, the application cannot be asked to avail of the said remedy, e.g. if the
subordinate authority has passed an order on prior consultation with the Government or
has acted under dictation of the Government, the application cannot be asked to file an
appeal to the Government. Similarly, where it is beyond the competence of the statutory
authority to grant relief as prayed in the petition, the said remedy also cannot come in the
way of the application. So also, remedies which are too costly or burdensome and cause
undue delay or hardship cannot be said to be suitable or adequate.

d) Where order is ultra vires, without jurisdiction or violative or natural justice:- The
existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to relief under Article 226, where the Act
which provides such remedy is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional or the rule (delegated
legislation) is ultra vires the stature (parent Act), or where there is inherent act of
jurisdiction, or where there is an error apparent on the fact of the record, or where the
authority has acted in contravention of the principles of natural justice, or where the
mandatory provisions of law have not been complied with, or where the alternative
remedy has been barred for no fault of the applicant, or where a writ of prohibition of
certiorari or quo warranto is prayed. The above circumstances are merely illustrative and
no exhaustive and ultimately the discretion lies with the court in granting relief in favour
 Page 13 of 14

of the petitioner who approaches the High Court by involving its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

e) Other cases:- But even if an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, a

High Court may still exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since it
does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, the High Court may entertain a writ petition
in its discretion taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.

In Venkaterswaran v. Wadhawani, AIR 1961,SC 1506, the customs authority imposed

certain rate of duty on gold and silver plated fountain pens. The question was on which
item of the schedule to the Indian Tariff Act,1934, the said category fell. The order was
passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and the appeal against the same was
dismissed by the Collector of Customs. Without resorting to revision application under
Articles 226 of the Constitution. Holding the view taken by the Custom authorities as
unreasonable and perverse, the Single Judge of the High Court(Tendolkar J.) allowed the
petition. A letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The
Department went to Supreme Court wherein a considerable force in the argument of
Learned Solicitor-General was observed. He in his argument pointed out that the “rule for
the party who applies for the issue of the high prerogative writ should, before he
approaches the court, has exhausted other remedies open to him under the law, is not one
which bars the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain the petition or deal with it, but is
rather a rule which courts have laid down for the existence of their discretion.”

However, the Supreme Court held that “on the whole and taking into account, the
peculiar circumstances of the case, the High Court has not exercised its discretion
improperly in entertaining the writ application or granting the relief prayed for by the
respondent and that no case for the interference by us has been made out.”

SCOPE OF PREROGATIVE WRITS –

The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power,
the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It
can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope
of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression “nature”, for the said
expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England ,
but only draws an analogy from them.27

Natural justice

Natural justice, like doctrine of ultra vires and public policy, is a branch of public law. It
is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. 28 The object
underlying rules of natural justice is to protect fundamental liberties and civil and
political rights. They, therefore, should be interpreted liberally so that they may conform,

27
Dwarka Nath v ITO , AIR 1966 SC 81:1965(3) SCR 536, Writ remedies, Justice B.P. Banerjee, 3rd
Edition, page 31
28
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 664
 Page 14 of 14

grow and tailor to serve public interest and respond to the demands of an evolving
society.

The traditional English Law recognizes two principles of natural justice29:

1. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa: No man shall be a judge in his own
cause, or a man cannot act as judge and at the same time a party or suitor; or the
deciding authority must be impartial and without bias; and

2. Audi alteram partem: Hear and other side, or both the sides must be heard, or no
man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of
the deciding authority.

However, due to rapid development and growth of Constitutional Law as well as

Administrative Law, a third principle of natural justice has also emerged:

3. Speaking orders or reasoned decisions: All orders should be supported by

reasons.

Conclusion –

Judicial control is the essential function to perform in respect of all these administrative
actions in the interest of justice and fair play and for upholding the rule of law. The
Prerogative rights are the instruments of grace given to us by the Constitution and should
be judiciously used for seeking justice in the matters of high importance.

29
V.G Ramachandran’s , Law of Writs (6th Edn.), Volume I , pg. 259