Certiorari is the writ people quietly skip. It’s the hardest of the five to spell, the hardest to pronounce, and the only one whose Latin doesn’t hint at what it does. “You may have the body” at least tells you a body is involved. “To be certified” tells you nothing. So if you’ve been nodding along at this word for weeks without really having it, you’re in a very large and very sensible crowd. The thing it names is not hard. A junior body passed an order it had no business passing. A senior court calls for the file, looks at it, and cancels the order. Certiorari is that cancellation. Everything else in this topic is detail about when a court will do it.
What certiorari actually means and does
A writ of certiorari is an order by which a superior court calls up the record of a proceeding before an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority and quashes an order already passed. The word comes from the old English writ that began with the phrase *certiorari volumus*, “we wish to be informed,” which is why the standard translations you’ll see are “to be certified” or “to be informed.” The court is asking to be informed of what happened below. Then, if what happened below was unlawful, it wipes it out.
Two features do all the work here, and they’re worth separating.
The first is timing. Certiorari comes after an order exists. There’s nothing to quash before then. That single fact is what distinguishes it from prohibition, which stops a proceeding while it’s still running, and it’s why certiorari is called curative or corrective while prohibition is preventive. Same pair of bodies, same defects, different clock.
The second is what the court refuses to do. It won’t decide the case again. Take a rent tribunal that passes an eviction order against a tenant who was never told there was a hearing. Natural justice broken, plainly. Certiorari quashes the eviction order. It does not declare the tenant entitled to stay. The matter usually goes back for a fresh, lawful hearing, and the tenant may well lose that hearing too. He’ll just lose it properly. That’s the whole bargain: certiorari buys you a lawful process, not a favourable result.
An analogy helps, provided you audit it. Think of a senior officer calling for a junior’s file. He checks whether the junior had the power to pass the order and whether he followed the rules. If not, he tears it up. Now the break, and it’s a big one: a senior officer can substitute his own view on the merits, because he’s a superior in the same administrative chain. A court can’t. It’s not the tribunal’s boss. It’s a supervisor of legality standing outside the chain, and that’s a narrower thing than it looks.
The Supreme Court said this early and said it flatly in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954): certiorari is supervisory, not appellate. The court doesn’t sit in appeal, doesn’t reweigh evidence, and doesn’t ask whether it would have decided differently. Hold on to that sentence. It’s the source of nearly every limit that follows, and it’s what separates this writ from the other four.
Where the Constitution keeps it: Articles 32 and 226
Two doors again. Article 32 takes you to the Supreme Court, Article 226 to a High Court, and both expressly name writs “in the nature of” certiorari. Article 32 is confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 226 covers those plus any other legal right, because of the phrase “for any other purpose.”
For certiorari, that split lands the way it does for mandamus. Most flawed tribunal orders violate a statutory right, not a fundamental one. A wrong eviction order, a rejected licence, a service penalty, a tax assessment passed without hearing: none of those is automatically a Part III violation, though a gross enough breach of natural justice can be dressed as one under Article 14. So the practical home of certiorari is Article 226, and Article 32 is the narrower door.
Now the distinction that trips up almost everyone who’s read this far, because it isn’t in the writ list at all. Article 226 gives High Courts writ jurisdiction. Article 227 separately gives them a power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in their territory. They overlap, they’re routinely pleaded together, and they aren’t the same. And the difference produced one of the sharpest corrections in modern writ law.
In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003), a two-judge bench held that certiorari under Article 226 could be issued against the orders of civil courts subordinate to the High Court. That reading stood for twelve years. Then a three-judge bench in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) overruled it and held that certiorari does not lie against orders of civil courts. The reason is structural rather than technical: a civil court isn’t an inferior body outside the judicial hierarchy the way a tribunal is, and the High Court’s tool for correcting it is supervision under Article 227, not a prerogative writ under Article 226. If you carry one modern case out of this topic, carry that one, because most study material still repeats the 2003 position.
The three grounds, and only three
Certiorari issues on three grounds. A jurisdictional defect. An error of law apparent on the face of the record. A violation of natural justice. The list is closed in practice, and the clearest statement of it is Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964), which is the one case to memorise here if you memorise any.
Jurisdiction is the first and cleanest. The body had no power to decide the matter at all, or it had power but went beyond it, or it assumed jurisdiction by wrongly deciding a preliminary fact that its own authority depended on. Say a tribunal has power to decide disputes between a landlord and a tenant, and it decides a dispute between two people who were never in that relationship. It wrongly answered the question that gave it its power. The order goes. This ground also covers the reverse: a body that wrongly refuses to exercise jurisdiction it actually has.
Error of law apparent on the face of the record is the ground everybody misuses. It doesn’t mean the order was wrong. It means the error is visible in the order itself and needs no argument to expose. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960), the Supreme Court held that such an error must be manifest and self-evident, and that a point requiring an elaborate argument to establish isn’t one. Applying a repealed section is an apparent error. Reading a section wrongly where two readings are genuinely arguable isn’t. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (1955) had already laid down the propositions courts still use, including that certiorari reaches errors of law but not errors of fact, and that the court can quash and send the matter back.
That fact-versus-law line is where students lose marks and litigants lose cases. Syed Yakoob is blunt about it: a finding of fact, however erroneous, can’t be corrected by certiorari, because reappreciating evidence is what an appeal does. There’s one narrow exception. If a finding rests on no evidence at all, that’s an error of law, because a body deciding without material has stepped outside its function. Insufficient evidence isn’t enough. No evidence is.
Natural justice is the third and, in practice, the busiest. Two rules carry it. *Nemo judex in causa sua*, nobody should judge their own cause, which covers bias and the appearance of bias. *Audi alteram partem*, hear the other side, which covers notice, a real opportunity to respond, and increasingly the duty to pass a speaking order that gives reasons. That eviction order passed without notice fails on the second rule and needs nothing else.
Notice what’s missing from all three grounds. Nowhere does the court ask whether the decision was fair, wise, or correct. That restraint is deliberate, and it’s the difference between judicial review and judicial activism as a live debate rather than a slogan.
Against whom certiorari lies
Certiorari lies against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and the classic formulation comes from Atkin LJ in Rex v. Electricity Commissioners (1924): a body having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, is subject to the writ. India adopted that formula early, and in Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas Advani (1950) the Supreme Court held that certiorari runs to judicial and quasi-judicial functions but not to purely administrative ones.
So the everyday respondents are the ones you’d expect: rent tribunals, service tribunals, revenue and taxing authorities acting judicially, election tribunals, disciplinary authorities, statutory bodies deciding rights between parties. Tribunals in India are the natural habitat of this writ, and the Central Administrative Tribunal is the standard service-law example.
Then the line moved, and this is the most important development in the topic.
The old test asked whether the body had a duty to act judicially, and courts kept hunting for that duty as a separate ingredient, which let a lot of harmful decisions through by calling them administrative. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) in the House of Lords broke that habit in England. In India, A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) did it here. A selection board’s member was himself a candidate for the same selection. The government argued the function was administrative, so natural justice didn’t apply and certiorari didn’t lie. The Supreme Court held that the dividing line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions is thin and getting thinner, that the duty to act fairly attaches to administrative action affecting rights too, and that the selection was vitiated by the appearance of bias. The duty to act judicially stopped being a separate box to tick and became something you infer from the power to affect rights.
By 1991 the Supreme Court had taken the natural next step and accepted that certiorari can go to administrative authorities whose decisions affect the rights of individuals. That’s the position to state, and the reasoning behind it is Kraipak’s: if a decision determines your rights, the label the government puts on the function shouldn’t decide whether a court can look at it. Understanding the quasi-judicial category as a spectrum rather than a box is the whole point of that shift.
Where certiorari still doesn’t reach:
It doesn’t lie against legislative action. Passing a law or a subordinate regulation isn’t deciding a dispute, and the remedy against a bad law is a declaration that it’s unconstitutional, not a quashing writ.
It doesn’t lie against private individuals or private bodies, however powerful, because they aren’t determining rights under legal authority. Habeas corpus is the odd one out among the writs on this point, and certiorari is firmly on the ordinary side of the line.
It doesn’t lie against ministerial or purely administrative acts with no civil consequence, like issuing a routine receipt or maintaining a register.
And it doesn’t reach the higher judiciary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), the Supreme Court held that a judicial order of a High Court can’t be challenged under Article 32. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), it held that no writ under Article 32 lies to quash a final judgment of the Supreme Court itself, and then created the curative petition as a limited safety valve instead. A court can supervise bodies below it. It can’t certiorari itself.
Who can ask? An aggrieved person, someone whose rights the order affected. That’s stricter than habeas corpus or quo warranto, where a stranger can walk in, though the standing rule has loosened at the edges through public interest litigation.
Certiorari and prohibition: the pair, in a table
These two writs are twins with one difference, and almost every question about either is really a question about that difference. They go to the same bodies, on the same grounds, from the same articles. Only the clock separates them.
| Prohibition | Certiorari | |
|---|---|---|
| Literal meaning | “To forbid” | “To be certified” or “to be informed” |
| Timing | While the proceeding is still pending below | After the order has been passed |
| Nature | Preventive: it stops something from happening | Curative and corrective: it undoes something that happened |
| Purpose | Keeps the inferior body inside its jurisdiction | Cancels an order made outside jurisdiction or against law |
| Effect | The proceeding stops; no order comes into existence | The order is quashed and the matter can be sent back for a fresh, lawful decision |
| Issued against | Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies | Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and administrative authorities affecting rights |
| Typical grounds | Excess or lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice | Excess or lack of jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the record, breach of natural justice |
| Who can move it | An aggrieved person | An aggrieved person |
One row in that table is doing quiet work: the “issued against” row. Certiorari’s reach widened to administrative authorities. Prohibition’s didn’t move nearly as far, because there’s usually no pending adjudication to stop in an administrative process. That asymmetry is the single most examinable thing about the pair.
And they aren’t alternatives. Where a tribunal has passed an interim order and the case is still running, a petitioner can ask for both: certiorari to quash what’s already been passed, prohibition to stop the rest. Courts grant them together often enough that treating the two as mutually exclusive is a mistake. The old line is that they’re two sides of the same coin, and for once the cliché is accurate.
How to study and remember this
Anchor everything on one sentence: certiorari quashes an order for a defect of legality, never for being wrong. Derive the rest from it and stop memorising lists.
It comes after the order because you can’t quash what doesn’t exist. It won’t reweigh evidence because being wrong on the facts isn’t a defect of legality. It reaches “no evidence at all” because deciding on nothing is a defect of legality wearing a factual costume. It won’t touch legislation because a statute isn’t an order in a dispute. It won’t touch private bodies because they aren’t exercising legal authority to determine rights. It grew to cover administrative authorities because a decision that determines your rights is doing a judicial thing whatever the file calls it.
For the case law, four are enough. Syed Yakoob (1964) for the three grounds and the fact-law line. Kraipak (1969) for the collapse of the administrative and quasi-judicial divide. Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) for no certiorari against civil courts, which corrects Surya Dev Rai and is the one most notes get wrong. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) for the ceiling, plus the curative petition it invented. Add Hari Vishnu Kamath (1955) and Satyanarayan Hegde (1960) if you want the error-apparent standard in a judge’s words.
For the pair, don’t memorise the comparison table row by row. Learn the clock. Pending equals prohibition, passed equals certiorari, and every other difference follows from that. If you can explain why certiorari expanded to administrative bodies while prohibition mostly didn’t, you understand the pair better than the table does.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the writ of certiorari in simple terms?
It’s an order by which a higher court calls for the record of a case decided by a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority and cancels the order if it’s unlawful. The phrase means “to be certified” or “to be informed.” The court checks legality, not correctness, and usually sends the matter back for a fresh hearing.
What are the grounds for issuing certiorari?
Three. Lack or excess of jurisdiction, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court set them out in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964). Being wrong on the facts isn’t a ground, because certiorari is supervisory and not appellate.
How is certiorari different from prohibition?
Timing and effect. Prohibition is issued while a proceeding is still pending and stops it, so it’s preventive. Certiorari is issued after an order has been passed and quashes it, so it’s curative. Both go to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and both can be sought in the same petition where a case is part-heard.
Can certiorari be issued against administrative authorities?
Yes, where the decision affects the rights of individuals. The older rule in Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas Advani (1950) confined it to judicial and quasi-judicial functions, but A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) collapsed the divide, and by 1991 the Supreme Court accepted that certiorari reaches administrative authorities affecting rights. It still doesn’t lie against legislative action or private bodies.
Can certiorari be issued against a civil court?
No. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), a three-judge bench held that certiorari under Article 226 doesn’t lie against orders of civil courts, overruling Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003). The High Court’s remedy against a subordinate civil court is supervision under Article 227, not a writ under Article 226.
What does “error of law apparent on the face of the record” mean?
An error visible in the order itself, needing no elaborate argument to expose. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960), the Supreme Court held such an error must be manifest and self-evident. Applying a repealed provision qualifies. Preferring one arguable interpretation over another doesn’t.
Can certiorari be used to challenge a finding of fact?
Generally no. A finding of fact, however erroneous, can’t be corrected by certiorari, because reappreciating evidence belongs to an appeal. The exception is narrow: a finding based on no evidence at all is treated as an error of law and can be quashed.
Who can file a writ petition for certiorari?
An aggrieved person, meaning someone whose legal rights the order affects. Unlike habeas corpus and quo warranto, a stranger can’t move it as of right, though courts have relaxed standing in public interest matters. It’s filed under Article 226 before a High Court, or Article 32 before the Supreme Court where a fundamental right is involved.
Practice Questions
1. The writ of certiorari literally means:
a) We command
b) To forbid
c) To be certified
d) By what authority
Answer: c) To be certified
2. Which of the following best describes the difference between prohibition and certiorari?
a) Prohibition lies against administrative bodies, certiorari against judicial bodies
b) Prohibition is issued while proceedings are pending, certiorari after an order is passed
c) Prohibition can be sought by any person, certiorari only by an aggrieved person
d) Prohibition is issued only by the Supreme Court, certiorari only by High Courts
Answer: b) Prohibition is issued while proceedings are pending, certiorari after an order is passed
3. Which case is the leading authority on the grounds for the issue of certiorari, including the rule that a finding of fact cannot be corrected by the writ?
a) T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954)
b) Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas Advani (1950)
c) Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964)
d) Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966)
Answer: c) Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964)
4. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), the Supreme Court held that:
a) Certiorari lies against the orders of civil courts under Article 226
b) Certiorari does not lie against the orders of civil courts, the remedy being under Article 227
c) Certiorari lies against a final judgment of the Supreme Court
d) Certiorari can be issued against legislative action
Answer: b) Certiorari does not lie against the orders of civil courts, the remedy being under Article 227
5. Consider the following statements about the writ of certiorari:
1. It is preventive in nature and is issued before an order is passed. 2. It can be issued against administrative authorities whose decisions affect the rights of individuals. 3. It empowers the court to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding of fact.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a) 1 only
b) 2 only
c) 2 and 3 only
d) 1 and 3 only
Answer: b) 2 only
Mains-style questions
1. “Certiorari is supervisory, not appellate.” Explain this proposition with reference to the grounds on which the writ is issued, and discuss why an erroneous finding of fact generally escapes it.
2. Trace the widening of the scope of certiorari from Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas Advani to A.K. Kraipak and after. What does this expansion reveal about the changing understanding of the duty to act fairly?
3. Distinguish between the writ of prohibition and the writ of certiorari with respect to timing, purpose, effect, and the bodies against whom each lies. Why did their scope diverge?
4. Examine the relationship between the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and their power of superintendence under Article 227, in the light of Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath.
5. “Certiorari secures a lawful process, not a favourable outcome.” Critically evaluate whether this makes the writ an adequate remedy against tribunal and quasi-judicial decision-making.
Certiorari is the writ that refuses to be useful in the way people want it to be. Come to it because a tribunal was unfair and it works. Come to it because a tribunal was wrong and it turns you away at the door, and the turning away is the design, not a flaw in it. A court that could quash any order it disagreed with would just be another layer of the same hierarchy, slower and more expensive, and the tribunals below would stop deciding anything at all. So the writ keeps its question narrow: did this body have the power, and did it use the power lawfully? Not, was this the right answer. The uncomfortable part is that a perfectly lawful order can still be a bad one, and certiorari won’t touch it. That gap isn’t a hole in the writ. It’s the shape of judicial review, and understanding why the gap has to exist is the difference between knowing the topic and reciting it.
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
