A writ of prohibition is a legal remedy (Constitutional Remedy) available in the Indian legal system that can be sought by an individual or group to prohibit a lower court or tribunal from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful. It is one of the writs that can be issued by a higher court, such as the Supreme Court or a High Court, to a lower court or tribunal, and it is generally used to prevent the lower court or tribunal from exceeding its powers or acting in a manner that is contrary to the law.

In the Indian legal system, a writ of prohibition is governed by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs of prohibition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which provides for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

A writ of prohibition can be sought by an individual or group who feels that a lower court or tribunal is acting beyond its jurisdiction or is otherwise acting unlawfully. For example, if a lower court or tribunal is trying a case that falls outside its jurisdiction, an individual or group may seek a writ of prohibition to prohibit the lower court or tribunal from continuing with the proceedings. Similarly, if a lower court or tribunal is acting in a manner that is contrary to the law or the Constitution, an individual or group may seek a writ of prohibition to prohibit the lower court or tribunal from continuing with the proceedings.

Process

In order to seek a writ of prohibition, an individual or group must file a petition in the appropriate court, which is usually the High Court or the Supreme Court. The petition must contain details of the case, including the facts of the case, the grounds on which the writ is being sought, and the relief sought. The petition must also be accompanied by supporting documents, such as copies of relevant laws or orders, and must be served on the lower court or tribunal against which the writ is being sought.

Once the petition has been filed, the court will consider the petition and decide whether or not to issue the writ of prohibition. If the court decides to issue the writ, it will issue an order prohibiting the lower court or tribunal from continuing with the proceedings. If the writ is not issued, the lower court or tribunal will be able to continue with the proceedings.

It is important to note that a writ of prohibition is not a substitute for an appeal or a review of a decision or order made by a lower court or tribunal. It is a separate legal remedy that can be sought to prohibit a lower court or tribunal from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful.

Landmark Judgements

Following are a few landmark judgements related to the writ of prohibition:

1. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1983): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition can be issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prohibit it from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful. The Court held that the writ of prohibition is a constitutional remedy and can be sought by an individual or group who feels that their fundamental rights have been violated by a lower court or tribunal.
2. State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (1984): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition can be issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prohibit it from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful. The Court also held that the writ of prohibition is a discretionary remedy and that the court has the discretion to decide whether or not to issue the writ.
3. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition can be issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prohibit it from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful. The Court also held that the writ of prohibition is a constitutional remedy and can be sought by an individual or group who feels that their fundamental rights have been violated by a lower court or tribunal.
4. State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition can be issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prohibit it from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful. The Court also held that the writ of prohibition is a discretionary remedy and that the court has the discretion to decide whether or not to issue the writ.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Anbazhagan (2004): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition can be issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prohibit it from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful. The Court also held that the writ of prohibition is a discretionary remedy and that the court has the discretion to decide whether or not to issue the writ.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a writ of prohibition is a legal remedy available in the Indian legal system that can be sought by an individual or group to prohibit a lower court or tribunal from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction or are otherwise unlawful. It is governed by the Constitution of India and can be sought by filing a petition in the appropriate court, which is usually the High Court or the Supreme Court. If the writ is issued, the lower court or tribunal will be prohibited from continuing with the proceedings. If the writ is not issued, the lower court or tribunal will be able to continue with the proceedings.