Quo Warranto: Challenging the Authority of a Public Office Holder

This article is written by Nabanita Goswami, BALLB, 4^TH year, 7^th semester, Durgapur Institute of Legal Studies, Durgapur during her internship at LeDroit India

Keywords

Quo Warranto, Public Office, Writ, Indian Constitution, Legal right, Authority, Article 32

Introduction

The ‘Quo Warranto’ is a Latin term which translates to ‘by what authority or warrant’ in English. It is a type of writ which is issued when a citizen wants to challenge a person’s right to hold a public office, position or authority. When Quo Warranto is issued, the person who is being appointed to the public office must show by what authority he is occupying it in order for it to be considered a valid appointment. It is one of the writs that has been granted by the Indian Constitution under Article 32, also known as the heart and soul of the Constitution. These writs were granted by the Constitution for the safeguard of the legal right of the individuals.

Historical significance

The origins of writ jurisdiction can be traced back to early English law. Quo Warranto has always been a tool for the royal crown for filing quo warranto for retaining control over public offices and preventing unauthorized people from occupying them. Over time, this tool evolved into being a legal remedy to safeguard individual’s rights and guarantee that public office is legitimately held. [1]

In India, the writ of quo warranto has an intriguing past dating all the back to the time of British Colonization. The writ was used by Britishers to investigate the validity of an individual’s claim to a public office or authority. It was also used to contest the election or appointment of public officials, including those in Indian Civil Service, on the grounds of eligibility or disqualification. The writ was also utilized to look whether a company or other legal body may officially conduct a franchise or other public function. [2]

After the independence of India from the British colonial rule, the Constitution makers decided to preserve the writ of Quo Warranto as a legal remedy. Thus, the writ was incorporate into the Indian Constitution along with four other writs, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition, in the Article 32 And Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Article 32 specifically grants for the issuance of writs in case of violation of any fundamental right in Supreme Court and Article 226 grants the High Courts the authority to do so.

It has, nevertheless, been applied in a number of instances where people who were wrongfully nominated or elected to particular positions were confronted and ousted from government.

Who can file the writ of quo warranto in India?

In India, anyone with a sufficient stake in the case or who feels wronged by the unauthorized holding of a public office or franchise may file a writ of quo warranto. The following are some of the individual or groups who may be eligible to file a petition for the issuance of writ of quo warranto in India [3]:

1. A person who feels they were unfairly excluded from a franchise or public position that they are legally qualified to occupy.
2. An individual contesting a public official’s election or appointment on the basis of eligibility or disqualification.
3. A person contesting the legitimacy of a company or other legal organization exercising a public function or franchise.
4. Someone contesting the legitimacy of a government agency or official’s action.

• A person who feels that they have suffered because of an unlawful or improper use of official authority.

Conditions for filing quo warranto

For filing a writ of quo warranto, there are some requisites that need to be fulfilled. Some of such conditions are explained below [4]:

1. In order to be granted legal standing, the petitioner must be directly and personally interested in the subject matter. This typically implies that the petitioner has to demonstrate that the claimed unlawful occupancy or abuse of authority has harmed them directly or that it has affected a specific legal right.
2. Quo warranto applies to challenges made against people who hold positions of public trust or authority. Instances involving private offices or solely contractual connections are not usually grounds for its use. Additionally, it is used in cases when a statute or constitution grants the right to name people to public office or to hold them.
3. A quo warranto action may need to be started within a certain amount of time following the contested appointment or occupation of an office. The petitioner has to file the writ within the allotted time frame following the purported illegal act or the discovery of the infraction. The writ may be dismissed if the paperwork is not filed within the allotted time.
4. The parties and the subject matter must fall within the jurisdiction of the court or authority where the petition is lodged. Depending on the laws that apply and the type of office or position being contested, different conditions may apply for jurisdiction.
5. The petitioner needs to back up their claims and allegations with enough proof. This could include records, affidavits, witness accounts, or any other pertinent proof that shows the holder of the office or position is disqualified, has usurped power, or lacks authorization.

Grounds for filing Quo Warranto

A writ of quo warranto may be issued on several grounds:

1. Ineligibility: When the officeholder doesn’t meet legal requirements like age, citizenship, or residency.
2. Power misuse: If the officeholder exceeds their authority or abuses their position.

• Unauthorized occupation: When someone takes office without proper authorization.
• Disqualification: If the officeholder becomes unfit due to factors like criminal conviction or bankruptcy.
• Conflicting interests: When the officeholder has conflicts that make them unsuitable for the position.
• Multiple office-holding: In cases where holding multiple public offices simultaneously is illegal.
• Inability to serve: If the officeholder becomes physically or mentally incapable of performing their duties.

Additionally, quo warranto can be filed for violations of appointment or tenure laws that conflict with constitutional provisions. The filing process is similar to other writs. In India, the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) have the power to issue

Limitations of quo warranto

Even though the writ of quo warranto is a powerful legal remedy available to the citizens of India, it has a few limitations. Some of the limitations are explained below [5]:

1. Public matters only: It can’t be used for private issues, only to challenge public officeholders’ authority.
2. Non-political questions: Courts may decline petitions involving political matters better handled by other government branches.
3. Standing requirement: Petitioners must show direct, personal interest or impact from the alleged unlawful occupancy or authority abuse.
4. Last resort: If other adequate legal remedies exist, courts may refuse to issue the writ.
5. False case: if the courts believe that the case presented before them is vexatious, they may refuse to entertain it.
6. No change of the result: if the courts have a reason to believe that their interference would not change the result of such violation, they may bluntly refuse to issue the writ of quo warranto.

These restrictions ensure quo warranto is used appropriately within its intended scope in the legal system.

Criticism of quo warranto

The writ of quo warranto is a very important part of the judicial activism in the country. But it has also been subject to various criticism. Some of the criticisms are explained as follow:

The writ of quo warranto in India faces several criticisms:

1. Discretionary nature: the supreme court and High Courts have flexibility in granting or refusing the writ based on case specifics. It is purely a discretionary power granted to them. This discretion may lead to various problems like inconsistent decisions, arbitrary outcomes and difficulty in predicting case results.

• Limited awareness: the writ of quo warranto is not widely known or understood by legal professionals and general public as compared to other writs. This lack of familiarity can hinder its use as a legal remedy.

• Effectiveness concerns: The writ may not effectively address corruption and abuse of power by officials since the people in power can easily hid material facts about the case or even extort the petitioners.

• Disability to tackle the real issues: It’s primarily used to challenge eligibility of public officials or disqualification issues. This focus may not tackle underlying systemic problems.

These criticisms highlight potential areas for improvement in the application and understanding of the writ of quo warranto in India’s legal system.

Illustrations/Examples

There have been numerous cases where the writ of Quo Warranto has been applied. The main principle of all those cases held by the courts have been to safeguard the legal right of the citizen and provide relief by enquiring into the legality of a claim of a person to a public office. Some of the landmark judgements have been explained below:

1. Kumar Padma Padam Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1213) – In this case, the president of India appointed Mr. K. N. Srivastava as a judge of the Guwahati High Court through an official appointment warrant and a writ of quo – warranto was issued in a petition claiming that he was unfit to hold such position. The apex court ruled that

quo warranto could be issued in the light of Mr. K. N. Srivastava’s inadequate qualification and as a result his appointment was revoked. [6]

• Amarendra Chandra v. Narendra Kumar Basu, (AIR1953CAL114) – In this particular case, the respondents were the members of a Calcutta school’s management committee. A petition of quo warranto was issued to call into doubt the legitimacy of these members’ appointment to their position. The Calcutta High Court held that quo warranto is applicable only on public office and that a private office would not be covered by it. [7]
  • G.D Karkare v. T.L Shevde, (1952 AIR 266, 1952 SCR 135) – In this case, a petition of Quo Warranto was presented before the court where the appointment of a non-applicant as Advocate – General Of Madhya Pradesh by the Governor was challenged. The main issue before the court was whether T.L. Shevde was eligible to be appointed as the Advocate-General under Article 165 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled out that T.L. Shevde didn’t meet the qualifications and quashed his appointment. [8]
  • Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr D Rama (AIR 1954 Pat. 297) – In this instance, the petitioner issued a writ of Quo Warranto against the Working Committee of Bihar Raj Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha in the High Court of Patna. Since the said institute was not a public office, the court refused to issue the writ of Quo Warranto against it. [9]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the writ of quo warranto serves as a crucial legal tool in India’s constitutional framework, allowing citizens to challenge the legitimacy of public officeholders. Rooted in English common law and preserved in the Indian Constitution, it plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity of public offices. While the writ has proven effective in several landmark cases like Kumar Padma Padam Prasad v. Union of India and Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr D Rama, it faces limitations and criticisms, including its discretionary nature, limited public awareness, and potential ineffectiveness in addressing systemic issues of corruption. Despite these challenges, quo warranto remains an important mechanism for ensuring accountability in public offices, though there may be room for improvement in its application and understanding within India’s legal system.

References

• ‘The Writ of Quo Warranto’ (2023) <https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/The-Writ-of-Quo- Warranto> (accessed on September 4, 2024)

• ‘Writ of Quo Warranto’ (2023)’ <https://blog.examarly.com/upsc/writ-of-quo-warranto-in- india/> (accessed on September 4, 2024)
• same as [2]
• same as [1]

• same as [1]
• Kumar Padma Padam Prasad v Union of India (1992) AIR 1213 (SC)
• Amarendra Chandra v Narendra Kumar Basu (1953) AIR 114 (Cal)

• G D Karkare v T L Shevde (1952) AIR 266, (1952) SCR 135

• Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v Dr D Rama (1954) AIR 297 (Pat)