Writ Jurisdiction

Legal provision

• Article 32(1) and (2): the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce the rights in Part III is guaranteed. The Court may issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
• Article 32(4): this right shall not be suspended except as the Constitution provides.
• Article 226(1): every High Court may issue directions, orders or writs throughout its territories "for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose".
• Article 226(2): a High Court may also act where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territories, even if the authority sits elsewhere.
• Article 21: the usual Fundamental Right pleaded in environmental petitions.

Meaning and definition

Writ jurisdiction is a court's power to issue writs. The five writs are habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. In environmental cases the most useful is mandamus, a command to a public authority to do its duty.

• Habeas corpus: produce a detained person before the court.
• Mandamus: perform a public duty.
• Prohibition: stop a lower court or tribunal from acting beyond its power.
• Quo warranto: show by what authority a public office is held.
• Certiorari: quash an order of a lower authority.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: Article 32 and Article 226

Article 32 is itself in Part III. The Supreme Court can use it only to enforce Fundamental Rights. Article 226 is wider in subject. A High Court can enforce a Fundamental Right and also any other legal right, such as a Pollution Control Board's duty under a statute.

Step 2: public interest litigation

The old rule of locus standi let only a person directly injured go to court. The Supreme Court relaxed it for public interest litigation. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), M.C. Mehta was not a riparian owner. The Court held that a public-spirited person can enforce the statutory duties of municipal bodies and Boards to prevent water pollution.

The relaxed rule has a limit. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the petition was dismissed because it was a private grievance. A petition must be in genuine public interest.

Step 3: letters and news reports

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., the Court treated a letter about illegal limestone quarrying as a petition under Article 32. This is epistolary jurisdiction. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Court took notice of a newspaper item about a motel on the Beas river.

Step 4: experts and monitoring

Courts often lack scientific knowledge. In the quarrying case, the Court appointed a committee that classified the quarries by harm. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.), it referred technical questions to the National Environmental Appellate Authority for an opinion. Courts can also use bodies such as NEERI, as in the Taj Trapezium and Bichhri cases.

Step 5: continuing mandamus

An ordinary mandamus ends with one order. A forest or a river needs supervision for years. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the Court kept the petition open and issued successive orders. This is continuing mandamus. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case), the Court set up a committee and held the petition pending for monitoring.

Step 6: compensation

A hazardous industry threatens the right to life. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), the Court held that claims for compensation can be decided within an Article 32 petition itself.

Exceptions and special rules

The Tribunal route

The National Green Tribunal hears civil cases with a substantial environmental question under seven listed Acts. Section 29 of the NGT Act bars civil courts from deciding matters the Tribunal decides. That section names civil courts. Articles 32 and 226 remain part of the Constitution.

Genuine public interest

The Court refuses relief to a petition that is really a private business dispute, as in Subhash Kumar.

Don't confuse: Article 32 and Article 226

Common mistakes

• Saying Article 32 covers "any other purpose". Only Article 226 does.
• Saying Article 226 is wider in territory. It is wider in subject and narrower in territory.
• Forgetting that a PIL must be in genuine public interest.
• Treating continuing mandamus as a separate Article. It is a way of using the writ power.

Apply it

Problem

Daily-wage workers living downstream of a dyeing factory fall ill from contaminated groundwater. They cannot afford a lawyer. A local journalist writes a letter to the Supreme Court describing the harm.

Issue

Can the letter be treated as a petition, and can the Court supervise the clean-up?

Rule

The Court may treat a letter as an Article 32 petition if it raises a genuine public interest matter. It may appoint experts and keep the case open.

Application

The harm affects people who cannot approach the Court. The letter is bona fide and the right at stake is Article 21.

Conclusion

The Court can register the letter, appoint a committee and monitor compliance by continuing mandamus.

Leading case laws

• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.

  Facts. A Dehradun organisation wrote in July 1983 about illegal limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills.

  Principle. The letter was treated as an Article 32 petition. An expert committee classified the quarries and the Court closed the most harmful.

  Why it matters. It shows letters and expert committees in writ jurisdiction.

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)

  Facts. Untreated sewage from Kanpur polluted the Ganga.

  Principle. A public-spirited person who is not a riparian owner can bring a petition to make authorities perform their duties.

  Why it matters. It relaxes locus standi.

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

  Facts. A petition about illegal felling near the Nilgiris grew into a nationwide inquiry into forests.

  Principle. The Court may keep a petition open and issue successive orders, using expert bodies.

  Why it matters. It is the leading example of continuing mandamus.

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case)

  Facts. M.C. Mehta sought directions on vehicle pollution in Delhi.

  Principle. The Court set up a committee and held the petition pending for monitoring.

  Why it matters. It shows supervision without a final order.

• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar

  Facts. The petitioner complained of slurry in the Bokaro river but had earlier sought permission to collect it.

  Principle. The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air. The petition itself was dismissed as a private grievance.

  Why it matters. It marks the limit of PIL.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Article 32: Supreme Court, Part III rights only, itself in Part III.
• Article 226: High Courts, Part III rights and "any other purpose".
• PIL relaxes locus standi; a petition must still be in genuine public interest.
• Rural Litigation Kendra (1985): a letter treated as an Article 32 petition.
• Continuing mandamus: Godavarman and vehicular pollution.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Right to wholesome environment
• Role of Indian Judiciary in the evolution of environmental jurisprudence
• National Green Tribunal-Their powers and jurisdiction