This article is written by Sunny Diwaker, University of Allahabad, a 4th-year B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) student during an internship at LeDroit India.
Keywords
- Certiorari
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law
- Breach of Contract
- Contract Performance
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Contract Remedies
INTRODUCTION
The legal principle of certiorari plays an instrumental role in shaping the contours of judicial review. Derived from Latin, meaning “to be informed of”, certiorari is one of the writs empowered under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, serving as a powerful tool for higher courts to control the judicial or quasi-judicial functions of lower courts and tribunals. In India, certiorari allows the Supreme Court or High Courts to nullify decisions of inferior courts or tribunals where there has been an error in jurisdiction, misapplication of the law, or a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Certiorari ensures that these bodies do not act outside their defined jurisdiction, maintain fairness, and follow due process. This is particularly relevant in the Indian legal context where tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies have proliferated in specialized fields like tax law, environmental law, and administrative law, increasing the need for judicial oversight. Over time, the writ of certiorari has expanded to include not just errors of jurisdiction but also procedural lapses that undermine justice.
UNDERSTANDING CERTIORARI
- Defining Certiorari
A certiorari is a supervisory judicial order issued by a higher court to review decisions made by lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies. The writ is issued when the lower court or tribunal acts beyond its jurisdiction, commits an error of law, violates procedural rules, or when the principles of natural justice are not adhered to. In India, the scope of certiorari has been refined over time, balancing the need for judicial intervention with respect for the autonomy of quasi-judicial authorities.
- Historical Evolution of Certiorari in India
The writ of certiorari has deep roots in English common law and was introduced into Indian legal practice during the colonial period. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the High Courts were empowered to issue the writ of certiorari to review the decisions of subordinate courts. However, the post-independence era saw a significant expansion in the writ’s scope and applicability, especially with the enactment of the Constitution of India. The judiciary’s interpretation of certiorari in landmark cases like Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana [(1950) SCR 566](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386061/ ) expanded its use to cover errors in the application of law, thereby offering more comprehensive protection against arbitrary and unjust decisions by lower authorities.
In subsequent rulings such as T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [(1954) SCR 250]( https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1959866/), the Supreme Court clarified that certiorari could be issued not just for correcting errors in jurisdiction but also for substantial violations of law, procedural irregularities, or a failure to observe the rules of natural justice.
CORE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CERTIORARI
The writ of certiorari operates on specific legal principles, which determine when and how it can be issued by the higher courts:
- Lack of Jurisdiction
One of the primary grounds for issuing certiorari is when a lower court or tribunal exercises powers beyond its statutory or constitutional jurisdiction. For instance, if a district court adjudicates a matter reserved exclusively for a specialized tribunal, certiorari can be invoked to nullify such a decision.
- The error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record
Certiorari is issued when there is a clear error of law that is evident from the record of the case. This means that even without conducting a detailed investigation, the court can identify an incorrect interpretation of the law, which has materially affected the decision-making process.
- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The principle of natural justice has its basic legal components, in the right to hearing and in the rule against bias. Certiorari is the means whereby a higher court or tribunal reviews the decision of a lower court or tribunal if the former faults the latter in its violation of these principles by, for instance, refusing one party the opportunity to present his case, or by manifest bias.
- Fraud, Collusion, or Bad Faith
Certiorari can also be issued in cases where fraud or misrepresentation has occurred. If the court or tribunal’s decision was influenced by fraudulent actions or bad faith, certiorari provides a means to undo such an unjust ruling.
CERTIORARI AND CONTRACT LAW: BREACH OF CONTRACT AND REMEDIES
Although certiorari tends to be thought of as a province of public and administrative law and remedies, it also can be considered in relation to contract disputes heard at tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies. In this section, we take a few common contract law issues that can arise in these cases and tie them to the certiorari issue.
- Time and Place of Performance in Contracts
In contract law, performance refers to the execution of the obligations that the parties agreed upon. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, lays down provisions regarding time and place of performance. Section 46 of the Act states that if no time for performance is specified, the contract must be performed within a reasonable time. Similarly, if the place of performance is not specified, the promisor must apply to the promisee to appoint a place.
For instance, if a contract for the supply of goods does not specify the delivery location, and the parties dispute it before a tribunal, certiorari may be invoked if the tribunal misinterprets this provision or if it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
- Who Must Perform the Contract?
According to Section 40 of the Indian Contract Act, if the contract does not stipulate that performance must be carried out by the promisor personally, it can be performed by an agent or representative. However, if the identity of the promisor is a material term of the contract, such as in contracts involving personal services, then the promisor alone must perform.
Certiorari may arise in the rare case where a tribunal erring in its decision whether a contract was properly performed by a representative of the corporation. For instance, in a construction contract, if a contractor appoints a third person to perform the contract works, and the tribunal rules in favor of such an appointment or delegation, a certiorari can be laid to correct the error.
- Discharge of Contract by Performance
The term contract is used to signify the discharge of the same when the parties perform the duty required by the contract; no other rights or duties are left with the parties. Performance, then, can discharge a contract, and exact performance under the contract terms is required. Often before lower courts or tribunals, disputes between parties over whether a contract has been fully performed arise out of complex contractual provisions.
If the tribunal misinterprets the law relating to discharge by performance, for example by finding that partial performance constitutes full performance, the writ of certiorari can be invoked to review and potentially quash the decision.
- Breach of Contract and Remedies
A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfill its contractual obligations. The remedies for breach of contract are primarily covered under the Indian Contract Act and include:
- Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the non-breaching party.
- Specific Performance: A court order compelling the breaching party to perform their obligations.
- Injunction: A court order restraining a party from doing something that would constitute a breach.
These remedies can be misapplied by a tribunal or lower court, if the tribunal or lower court awards damages without proper justification or if it fails to take into account specific performance, so certiorari is invoked to correct the error.
LANDMARK CASES ON CERTIORARI
India has seen many landmark rulings in different areas of law, concerning which certiorari has been at the center. This is for the cases that show us in what circumstances the certiorari is issued and how it affects the Indian judicial system.
- T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [(1954) SCR 250](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1959866/)
In this situation, the Supreme Court considered the supervisory character of certiorari, and that the writ may issue in order to correct errors of law or jurisdiction. Certiorari to the Court was clarified to mean jurisdictional errors, and it now also means natural justice errors or substantial errors as regards the application of law.
- Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana [(1950) SCR 566](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386061/)
The rights of this case involved that certiorari could be utilized to challenge administrative conclusions, a major expansion of its reach. The Court in certiorari can quash the decisions where statutory provisions were breached or natural justice has not been followed.
- Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1016548/)
This is a landmark judgment wherein the Supreme Court has been used to expand the use of certiorari in those cases where the decisions of the inferior’s courts affect the right of the person though no formal trial is being conducted. Certiorari could be invoked if the decision is manifestly illegal or arbitrary, the Court held.
- Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [(1955) 1 SCR 1104](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1450722/)
This case settled for the use of certiorari not only for judicial decisions but also for the decisions of administrative tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies. The Court noted that it was also possible for the Court to issue a certiorari to rectify mistakes that appeared on the face of the record even though the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction.
- A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/639803/)
In this instance, the Court developed the application of natural justice to administrative decision-making. It established the principle for certiorari to set aside administrative decisions effected against natural justice principles, e.g., bias or denial of fair hearing, and hence created a groundbreaking doctrine.
RECENT TRENDS IN CERTIORARI
- Expanding the Scope of Certiorari
Over time, that has meant the extension of the scope of certiorari to include administrative tribunals — especially insofar as those tribunals have developed a prominent role in specialty areas of the law, for example, environmental regulation, or the securities markets. For instance, certiorari has been employed to inspect orders of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) to check their extent.
- Digitalization and Certiorari
Adapted to computing, certiorari has shifted to handling errors in digital as in analog proceedings, including virtual courts, and online tribunals. A certiorari can review and rectify manner of review procedural lapses in e-hearings such as improper service of notice or technical glitches that deny one a right to be heard. Certiorari’s flexibility in providing a new technological challenge shows its role in allowing means to maintain the rule of law in current judicial processes.
CONCLUSION
The certiorari is a strong instrument in the hands of the Indian judicial system to make sure that justice is done by the lower courts and quasi-judicial bodies. It is critical to correcting jurisdictional overreach, procedural fairness, and the protection of the sanctity of the rule of law. Certiorari is necessary in contract law disputes, administrative adjudications, and the fields of public law generally, as an adequate judicial oversight check against arbitrary and unlawful action.
In the sweep of Indian jurisprudence, the idea of certiorari signifies the asserted principle that no authority is itself above the law. Second, it secures the accountability of courts and tribunals, so that they execute their jurisdictions and observe the rules of justice. But certiorari accomplishes more than just quashing decisions that are legally or unjust — it guarantees that people are properly treated and that the judicial system is credible and just.
Another constitutional remedy, available to individuals wrongly subjected to the whims and caprices of judicial or administrative authority, forms the skeleton (certiorari, writ of quo warranto, habeas corpus, mandamus, etc.) of constitutional remedies in India. With certiorari, a cornerstone of India’s legal landscape will continue to be an important bulwark in preserving the rule of law and protecting individual rights.
REFERENCES:
- Constitution of India 1950, art 32.
- Constitution of India 1950, art 226.
- Section 40 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
- Section 46 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
- Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana [(1950) SCR 566](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386061/)
- T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [(1954) SCR 250](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1959866/)
- Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1016548/)
- Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [(1955) 1 SCR 1104](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1450722/)
- A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/639803/)
