case study of quo warranto

The Legal Quotient

In Legal Matters, Legal Quotient Matters

Writ of Quo-Warranto

Adv Hemant More

Law and You > A dministrative Law > Writ of Quo-Warranto

There are five major types of writs viz. habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. Each of them has a different meaning and different implications. In this article, we shall discuss the Writ of Quo-Warranto.

Anything that is issued under authority is a writ. Orders, warrants, directions etc. issued under authority are examples of writs. Any person whose fundamental rights are violated can move the High Court (under article 226 of Indian constitution) or the Supreme Court (under article 32) and the court can issue direction or orders or writs. Thus the power to issue writs is primarily a provision made to make available the Right to Constitutional Remedies to every citizen.

In addition to the above, the Constitution also provides for the Parliament to confer on the Supreme Court power to issue writs, for purposes other than those mentioned above. Similarly, High Courts in India are also empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

In India, both the Supreme Court and the High Court have been empowered with Writ Jurisdiction. Further, Parliament by law can extend power to issue writs to any other courts (including local courts) for local limits of the jurisdiction of such courts.

The word Quo-Warranto literally means “by what warrants?” or “what is your authority”? The Writ of Quo-Warranto is the writ which is issued directing subordinate authorities to show under what authority they are holding the office. If a person has usurped a public office, the Court may direct him not to carry out any activities in the office or may announce the office to be vacant. Thus High Court may issue a writ of quo-warranto if a person holds an office beyond his retirement age.

The Writ of Quo-Warranto cannot be issued to a person working in a private field. This writ is issued to a person in an office, the legality of which is being questioned.

Conditions for issue of thw Writ of Quo-Warranto

The office must be public and it must be created by a statue or by the constitution itself.
The office must be a substantive one and not merely the function or employment of a servant at the will and during the pleasure of another.
There must have been a contravention of the constitution or a statute or statutory instrument, in appointing such person to that office.

Case Laws for Writ of Quo Warranto:

In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 491 case, the Court opined that the writ of quo warranto calls upon the holder of a public office to show to the court under what authority he is holding the office in question. If he is not entitled to the office, the court may restrain him from acting in the office and may also declare the office to be vacant.

In Amarendra v. Nartendra, A.I.R. 1953 Cal.114. case, the Court held that The writ lies in respect of a public office of a substantive character and not a private office such as membership of a school managing committee.

In Mohambaram v. Jayavelu, A.I.R. 1970 Mad.63; Durga Chand v. Administration, AI R 1971 Del.73. cases, the Court opined that an appointment to the office- of a public prosecutor can be quashed through quo warranto if in contravention of relevant statutory rules as it is a substantive public office involving duties of public nature of vital interest to public.

In K. Bheema Raju v. Govt, of A.P., A,I.R. 1981 A.P. case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of a government pleader as the procedure prescribed in the relevant rules for this purpose had not been followed.

In Jogendra Nation v. Assam, A.I.R, 1982 Gau.25. case, the nomination by the Governor of members to the state legislative council, appointment of a Chief Minister in a state, nominations or elections to municipal bodies, inter alia have been challenged by way of petitions for quo warranto. The Court held that Quo warranto will not be issued if there is an alternative legal remedy provided by the statute. Thus it will not be a proper remedy to challenge the election of a Chief Minister to the House, as the statutes provides for the remedy of an election petition..

In Niranjan Kumar v. University of Bihar, A.I.R. 1973 Pat.85 case, the Court held that the office of the Principal of a private college has been held to be not a public office.

An appointment to a public office cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding. However, in Haryana v. Haryana Coop. Transport, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 237 case, the Supreme Court held that a person can challenge an award of a labour court under article 226 by challenging the appointment of the presiding officer thereof on the ground that he was not qualified under the law to hold the office. The court ruled that the appointment was not being challenged collaterally in proceedings taken to challenge the award, but directly in substantive proceedings. The court not only quashed the appointment of the presiding officer but also set aside the award.

In University of Mysore v. Govinda A.I.R.1965 S.C.491 (494) case, the Court held that a writ of Quo warranto will issue in respect of an office only if the office is public.

In Niranjan v. Bihar University, A.I.R.1973 Pat.85 (Para.3) Ramachandran v. Aligiriswani, A.I.R. 1961 Mad.450(455:467) case, the Court held that the writ of quo warranto will not lie in respect of office of a private charitable institution or of a private association. Thus, the managing Committee of a private school even though a small section of the public, viz. the students and guardians are interested in the school, is not an office of a public nature for the purpose of quo warranto.

In Anand Behari v. Ram Sahai” Ramachandran (1916) IKB 595 case, the court held that a public office is one which is created by the constitution or a statute and the duties of which must be such in which public is interested. In this case it was held that the office of speaker of Legislative Assembly is a public office.

In Puranlal v. P.C.Ghosh, A.I.R.1970 Cal.118 case, the Court held that mere declaration that a person is elected to an office or mere appointment to a particular office is not sufficient for the issue of quo warranto unless such person actually accepts such office.

In state of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 903 case, the court found the transfer and posting of two district judges contrary to law, but did not issue quo warranto as it was a case of mere irregularity that did not make the occupation of office wrongful.

For More Articles on Administrative Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here

All you need to know about the writ of Quo Warranto

This article is by Shivi Khanna , a student of School of Law, Sushant University, Gurugram. This article is an attempt to understand the origin, history and efficacy of the writ of Quo Warranto.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution (hence referred to as the “Constitution”) is the guardian and shield that serves to protect the individual’s fundamental rights, given in Part III of the Constitution. According to the words left behind by Dr. B.R Ambedkar, Article 32 is the most important Article, and it embodies the “very heart and soul” of the Constitution. Indeed, in order to be called ‘rights’ in the first place, having an effective remedy to combat the breach of one’s fundamental rights is essential. The Constitution-makers arranged for a remedy in the form of Article 32 and Article 226 . These Articles allowed for the Courts to issue writs – orders issued in the name of the sovereign necessitating the performance of a certain act.

Article 32 grants the Supreme Court with the power to issue five types of writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. The Supreme Court can also issue writs “in the nature of” the five aforementioned writs, allowing the Court to have a wider scope of movement in the enforcement of justice. The writ jurisdiction of Article 32 only covers the protection of fundamental rights by the Supreme Court, whereas, Article 226 grants the High Courts the power to issue the five types of writs, or any other purpose.

What is Quo Warranto

The maxim quo warranto means “by what authority” and this writ is issued to prevent a ‘usurper’ from wrongfully occupying a substantive public office, enjoying certain privileges and franchise from that public office, when he does not have the authority to do so. The person being appointed to the public office must show by what authority he occupies it, in order for it to be considered a valid appointment.

History and later developments of the writ of Quo Warranto

The origins of the concept of writ jurisdiction can be found in early English law. Quo warranto used to be issued by the Crown against any person occupying or usurping a public office, availing franchise or privilege of the Crown – to show by what authority the usurper justified his claim. In India, during the Pre-Constitution period, the writ of quo warranto was not used frequently and was gradually replaced by proceedings in the nature of quo warranto . According to Section 9 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1938 , information in the nature of quo warranto came to an end. The three High Courts in the Presidency towns, before the Constitution came into effect in 1950, possessed the authority to issue the writ of quo warranto within the limits of their original jurisdiction. With the advent of the Constitution in 1950, Articles 32 and 226 emerged and granted the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, the power to issue writs, including the writ of quo warranto .

Who can file the writ of Quo Warranto

The following conditions are required to apply to the court to issue a writ of quo warranto:

There is no bar or restriction on who can apply. Any person can apply as long as their fundamental or any other legal right is being breached. In cases where there is no breach of right, a question of public interest must arise with respect to the application.
The application made by the applicant should be bona fide .
The application should not be made for the sake of certain hidden political struggle or undercurrent. The applicant should act in public interest, and not expect any benefit or unethical gain through making the application.

Grounds of issuing the writ of Quo Warranto

The writ of quo warranto can be issued under the following cases:

When a public office (created by law or the Constitution) is occupied by a private person, who does not actually have the authority to do so.
The public office must be substantive in character. The duties connected to the office must also be public in nature.
The usurper, whose authority is being challenged, must be holding his position at the time the challenge is made.
Even if a person was qualified at one point of time, the writ of quo warranto can be issued against him if he loses his qualifications.

Conditions for issuing the writ of Quo Warranto

Public office.

The writ of quo warranto applies in the case of an office which is public and not private in nature, i.e established by law or the Constitution. The public office must be substantive in nature, which excludes mere employment or function of a servant at the pleasure of another.

The writ can be successfully applied in a case where

The usurper does not have the requisite qualifications to hold the public office.
The usurper exercises certain rights or privileges with respect to the public office he wrongfully occupies.

The Court needs to have strong and concrete justification if it wants to interfere with cases associated with election. The Court can only interfere by issuing the writ of quo warranto where:

The election does not have the sanction of the law;
There was a problem where people’s right to express their opinions was being curtailed;
The electoral roll was unlawfully made and used.

In cases where the inconsistency in the election does not affect the end result, or the problem is not severe enough, the Court usually does not interfere. The Court also does not take action when the applicant’s intentions are shady, with respect to the problems concerned with election.

Procedure to follow if Quo Warranto has to be issued

Article 32(1) grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs, orders, directions through “appropriate proceedings” for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights covered under Part III of the Constitution. The procedure for issuing writs is not rigid and has not been stipulated in the Constitution. As India is a diverse country with a plethora of social issues such as poverty, exploitation and lack of awareness, it would not be conducive to enforce fundamental rights if the process for doing so is too complicated and ‘straight-jacketed.’ The Court may either take suo motu cognisance of the case, or entertain a PIL (public interest litigation) concerned with the case.

When can the writ of Quo Warranto be refused

The Court has the discretion to refuse to grant quo warranto in cases where:

The Court’s interference would not change the end result;
The case is vexatious;
The defendant no longer wrongfully occupies public office.

Case laws on the writ of Quo Warranto

Amarendra chandra v. narendra kumar basu, (1951).

In this case , the members of the Managing Committee of a school in Calcutta were the respondents. The application for quo warranto was prayed for, to question the authority by which these members occupied their posts. The Court held that the writ of quo warranto would not be applicable to an office of a private nature.

G.D Karkare v. T.L Shevde, (1952)

In G.D Karkare v. T.L Shevde, (1952 ) , the appointment of a non-applicant as Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh by the Governor was challenged. The non-applicant had already crossed the age of 60 and retired from his post as a High Court Judge. As such, based on Article 165(1) , since he was no longer a High Court Judge, he was not qualified to be appointed as Attorney-General. Here, the Court observed that it was not merely confined to enforcing fundamental rights based on Article 226(1). The phrase “for any other purpose” in Article 226 empowered the Court to act on any object it considered appropriate and in the exercise of its powers. There is no reason that the same cannot be applied to issuing the writ of quo warranto.

Furthermore, in the proceedings for the writ of quo warranto, the non-applicant does not seek to enforce his fundamental rights or complain of any non-performance of duty towards himself. The main issue was whether the non-applicant has the right to occupy the office and whether the order passed is an order ousting the non-applicant from his position.

University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao, (1963)

In this case, the University of Mysore had set up recruitment advertisements for the positions of professor and reader. The eligibility for the posts would be decided on the basis of the list of criteria made by the University. The petition was put forward to issue the writ of quo warranto based on the fact that an unqualified person, not meeting the criteria was recruited and appointed as reader in English. It was observed by the Supreme Court that to issue the writ of quo warranto , the person who wrongfully occupies the public office, must be holding an office of a ‘substantive’ nature.

Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Dr. Rajeshwar Dayal and Ors, (2003)

In Mahesh Chadra Gupta v. Dr. Rajeshwar Dayal and Ors, (2003 ) , the appointment of the respondent as a professor of Paediatrics in S.N Medical College in Agra was questioned. However, it was found that the appellant had no connection or interest whatsoever with the appointment and was not adversely affected in any way. The Court referred to the case Bindra Ban v. Sham Sunder (1959) , where the locus standi was relaxed for applying for the writ of quo warranto . However, even so, a person cannot apply for quo warranto when he does not have even the remotest connection to the appointment of the public office which is being challenged. By allowing such applications, the Court would be flooded by such petitions.

Even if the locus standi is relaxed, there must be certain connection between the petitioner and the appointment to the public office, no matter how remote for quo warranto to be maintainable.

S. Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph, (2010)

In S. Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph, (2010 ) , the appointment of the appellant as a member of the State Consumer Commission was challenged on the ground that his name was not recommended by the Selection Committee. Here, the respondent had no relation to the State Commision and failed to prove how the appointment would adversely affect the samiti of which he was a general secretary. The Court labelled the respondent a ‘busybody’ and ‘interloper’. The Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court erred by issuing the writ of quo warranto, thus quashing the appellant’s appointment to the State Commission.

Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal, (2013)

In Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal, (2013) , it was laid down that quo warranto applies where an appointment is made which is “contrary to statutory provisions” and came up with a test to determine whether a person is eligible/qualified to hold office as per the stipulations of law. The key point is to see if the office holder has the qualifications to hold office as per law or not, with respect to statutory provisions.

Critical analysis of the writ of Quo Warranto

Elements of quo warranto.

For issuing the writ of quo warranto , the following ingredients are necessary:
Wrongful occupation;
Nature of the office being public, not private;
Substantive character;
Contrary to statutory provisions or the law.
For quo warranto , with respect to Article 226(1), it is not necessary that there must be a breach of fundamental rights or a non-performance of duty. The main issue is – whether the usurper has the authority to hold the office, and if not, then the order passed is an order to oust the usurper from his post.
Even though the locus standi for quo warranto is relaxed compared to writs such as certiorari and mandamus, the applicant must not be completely unrelated to the appointment and office in question. Even if the connection is remote, the ‘link’ itself must exist.
In cases of election, where the applicant is not adversely affected or the end result would not change despite the interference of the Court, the Court usually takes a stance of non-interference.
The applicant must not have any malafide or ulterior motives for applying for quo warranto . The purpose of the applicant should be inclined towards acting for the benefit of public interest, and not for personal gain.

The concept of Quo Warranto in other countries

England .

The Crown started the practice of issuing prerogative writs (writs with a special relationship to the Crown), thus elevating prerogative writs and the Crown’s justice supreme over the other courts. The Crown used the writ of quo warranto to prevent the wrongful usurpation of public offices, and associated rights, privileges and franchise by its subjects, predominantly the lords of the nobility. By showing with what right or authority they claimed their office, the office-holders justified their claim. During the era of colonisation, English law left its mark on the commonwealth countries and its colonies (including India). The concept of writs in Indian law can find its origins in English law.

California, USA

In California, USA , to apply for the writ of quo warranto , the approval of the Attorney-General is required. If leave to sue is granted, then the applicant or relator must proceed under the supervision of the Attorney-General. If the usurper holding the office is found to be holding it without authority or wrongfully, then, the Court may issue a writ of quo warranto to remove him.

In Australia , the writ of quo warranto inquires into the justification, or by what authority a person holds a franchise or an office. The usurper may be ‘deemed’ to hold an office wrongfully, and the writ can be brought about by both the Crown or a person.

To summarise, Articles 32 and 226 serve as the guardians of fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. These Articles prevent the legislative and the executive from infringing on the rights of the people, which have been guaranteed to them by the Constitution. The independent judiciary has been tasked with interpreting the Constitution and it fulfils the right to constitutional remedies through writs. The writ of quo warranto acts as a scanner to inquire into the legitimacy of holders of substantive public offices.

Public offices are vital toward the day-to-day and overall smooth functioning of the nation. To have unqualified people sitting in these important offices is a very serious concern. Quo warranto curbs nepotism, corruption, and irregularity and allows for applications to remove unqualified people from these important positions. Despite being a legacy of the colonial era, the writ of quo warranto is still significant and relevant, especially with respect to preserving the sanctity of public offices and elections in India.

https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/quo-warranto
https://researchdata.edu.au/quo-warranto-briefs/162107
https://ccsuniversity.ac.in/bridge-library/pdf/B.A.LL.B.%20VIII%20SEM%20(ADMINISTRATIVE%20LAW%20BL%20801)%20TOPIC-%20WRITS.pdf
J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 54th Edition
Sumeet Malik, V.D Kulshreshtha’s Landmarks in Indian Legal and Constitutional History, EBC, Lucknow
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, LexisNexis

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

How to become a SEBI Law Officer

Crack Grade A officers exam and prepare for Limited Insolvency exam side by side for back-up

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Quo Warranto and Public Accountability: A case study of Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013)

Historical background of quo warranto:, the concept of public accountability:, rajesh awasthi v. nand lal jaiswal (2013): case overview.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Judgment: The judgment in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013) upheld public accountability by allowing Quo Warranto petitions to scrutinize public appointments, fostering confidence in governance integrity. It provided clarity on procedural aspects, setting precedents for future cases. However, weaknesses include potential misuse for political vendettas and lack of comprehensive systemic solutions to underlying appointment issues.[12]
Potential Alternatives or Additional Considerations: To enhance accountability, independent oversight bodies could vet candidates, reducing reliance on Quo Warranto. Transparency in the appointment process through public disclosure of criteria and whistleblower protections could mitigate favoritism concerns. Addressing systemic deficiencies requires legislative and institutional reforms to promote transparency, meritocracy, and integrity in governance.[13]
Corporations: Unlawful Practice of the Law: Quo Warranto as a Means of Prohibiting" 2 California Law Review 120-123 (1923)
Smith, J. "Public Accountability: Meaning and Significance." Journal of Governance Studies, vol. 45, no. 2, 2018, pp. 67-82.
Johnson, M. "Quo Warranto and Public Accountability: A Legal Perspective." Administrative Law Review, vol. 30, no. 4, 2015, pp. 112-125.
Singh, R. "Legal Issues Raised in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013)." Indian Law Review, vol. 25, no. 3, 2014, pp. 45-58.
Kumar, S. "Arguments in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013): A Critical Analysis." Supreme Court Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2014, pp. 112-128.
Sharma, A. "Analysis of Quo Warranto in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013)." Judicial Review Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 2, 2015, pp. 89-104.
Smith, E. "Comparative Analysis of Quo Warranto in Various Jurisdictions." International Law Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, 2016, pp. 56-70.
Patel, R. "Strengths and Weaknesses of Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013)." Legal Perspectives Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, 2014, pp. 78-92.
Mishra, P. "Practical Implications of Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013) on Political and Administrative Processes." Governance Today, vol. 50, no. 2, 2014, pp. 34-48.
Writ of Quo Warranto: History, Scope, Evolution, and Landmark Judgments, available at: https://legal60.com/writ-of-quo-warranto-history-scope-evolution-and-landmark-judgements/ (last visited on March 2, 2024)
Dr Lp. Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 8th edn., 2012).
"Corporations: Unlawful Practice of the Law: Quo Warranto as a Means of Prohibiting" 2 California Law Review 120-123 (1923).
Supra note 1

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Human Rights In The Digital...

The Educational Renaissance...

Case Analysis Of The SC Sub...

Diplomacy, Not Law, Governs...

Property Disputes: The Doct...

The Booming Brothel: Online...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

quo warranto

Primary tabs.

Quo warranto is Latin for "by what warrant” (or authority). A writ of quo warranto is a common law remedy which is used to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office. A state may also use a quo warranto action to revoke a corporation's charter . When bringing a petition for writ of quo warranto , individual members of the public have standing as citizens and taxpayers.

In one case from Alabama , the court noted that the writ of quo warranto is “utilized to test whether person may lawfully hold office and the purpose of writ of quo warranto is to ascertain whether office holder is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any functions of, office to which he or she lays claim”

See also: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 81(a)(4)

[Last updated in March of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

business law
business organizations
corporations
THE LEGAL PROCESS
legal practice/ethics
business sectors
commercial transactions
legal education and practice
wex definitions

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Quo Warranto: The Structure and Strength of a Common Law Antitrust Remedy

We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:
Health Sciences
Earth Sciences
Cognitive Science
Mathematics
Computer Science
Academia ©2024

AN EMPIRICAL CRITICAL AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PHILIPPINES’ EMERGENCY PATENT LAWS
PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE ON THE LACK OF DUE PROCESS ISSUE ARISING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION
EVALUATING PROPOSALS TO CREATE STRONGER PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR VICTIM-SURVIVORS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND MIGRANT SMUGGLING VIS-A-VIS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
UNDERSTANDING TAXPAYER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE RUN AFTER TAX EVADERS (RATE) PROGRAM

UST Law Review

Leave an Indelible Imprint

Republic v. Sereno and its Aftermath: The Politicization of Quo Warranto Petitions

By: Bryan Jay L. Santos [1]

I. INTRODUCTION

Despite our most solid belief that we are right, we should still have the humility to be open to the possibility that others may not see it our way. – Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen in his Dissenting Opinion in Republic v. Sereno

On May 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, in one fell swoop, ousted its own Chief Justice. The decision in Republic v. Sereno [2] took the Office of Solicitor General’s (OSG) position that even impeachable officials can be removed from office via a quo warranto petition. The decision discarded the traditional concept of removing impeachable officials from office only through impeachment proceedings. Sereno’s removal even prompted Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen to call it a “legal abomination.” [3]

But by and large, the Sereno decision, aptly described as sui generis or “in a class by itself,” has set a legal precedent for cases based on quo warranto petitions by the OSG. The decision has engendered fears that the OSG has found a way to silence those in the government service who espouse views that are contrary to the current administration’s position.

II. DIFFERENTIATING IMPEACHMENTFROM QUO WARRANTO

The Court explained in Sereno that “at its most basic, impeachment proceedings are political in nature, while an action for quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding traditionally lodged in courts.” [4] Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution specifies the grounds for impeachment and those officials that may be impeached:

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

The Court points out that impeachment is “essentially a political process meant to vindicate the violation of the public’s trust.” The Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Meanwhile, it vests in the Senate the power to try and decide all the cases. [5] Any member of the House of Representatives or any citizen with an endorsement of any member of the House of Representatives may file an impeachment complaint. [6]

Meanwhile, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court defines a quo warranto petition as:

Section 1. Action by Government against individuals. — An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:

(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;

(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or

(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

This rule allows the Solicitor General to commence the action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, the Court of Appeals (CA), or even the Supreme Court (Court). Procedural law shows that a quo warranto petition proceeds independently from an impeachment case, even if the two may result in the same outcome: the removal of an impeachable official.

III. HOW THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN SERENO

In Sereno, the Court tackled the OSG’s petition for being a matter of transcendental importance, which is an exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. [7] The Court ruled that the one-year prescription on quo warranto cases applies only to private citizens and not to the State. The Court took the OSG’s position that the State has an imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto petition under the Latin maxim “ nullum tempus occurit regi .” [8] As applied in Sereno , this maxim shows that when the State, through the Solicitor General, files a case on behalf of the people or when the matter involves the interest of the general public, the lapse of time constitutes no bar to the proceeding. [9] Thus, prescription or laches will not be a defense when the government is the real party in interest. The Court found that Sereno had consistently failed to file her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for her years of service in the government, particularly during the period she was affiliated with the University of the Philippines. The Court held in no uncertain terms that the SALN requirement is mandatory. [10] It ruled that her failure to file her SALNs reflected on her lack of integrity: a continuing qualification for a member of the Judiciary. [11]

Sereno’s inconsistent filing of her SALNs as a professor at the University of the Philippines disqualified her at the outset for the position of Chief Justice in 2012. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which screens and recommends applicants to posts in the Judiciary, [12] required the then applicants to submit their past ten (10) SALNs, specifically for 2001 to 2011. Despite this rule, the Court found it bizarre for the JBC to have accepted Sereno’s submission of only three (3) SALNs and her justification-explanation letter indicating that her other SALNS were “infeasible to retrieve.” The OSG disputed this by presenting some of Sereno’s “missing” SALNs. [13] As ruled by the Court, Sereno’s blatant disregard of the JBC rule on SALN submission manifested her lack of integrity. She violated not only the JBC rules but also the law and the Constitution.

Sereno’s defense consistently relied on the “ Doblada doctrine,” which pertains to the Court’s decision in Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr. [14] In this case, Norberto Doblada, a court sheriff, was accused of failing to file his SALNs for 18 years based on the investigation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). However, Doblada presented evidence [15] that he had filed one of the SALNs that he allegedly failed to file. The Court held in this case that “one cannot readily conclude that respondent failed to file his sworn [SALNs] … simply because these documents are missing[.]” Sereno thus passed the buck to the OSG to show that she did not file her SALNs in the contested years and not just rely on their finding that the SALNs were simply no longer on file in the relevant offices. [16]

The Court found that the Doblada case is not on all fours with the circumstances surrounding Sereno’s alleged non-filing of her SALNs. The Court highlighted the fact that based on the evidence presented, “the existence of [the] SALNs and the fact of filing thereof were neither established by direct proof constituting substantial evidence nor by mere inference.” [17] Moreover, the Court found in Doblada that there was no categorical statement from the OCA, the repository agency for the SALNs of employees of the Judiciary, that the contested SALNs were not on file. This was not the same circumstance in Sereno’s case. The Office of the Ombudsman, the repository agency of Sereno’s SALNs, categorically stated that Sereno has no SALNs filed for the contested years. Thus, the Ombudsman’s categorical statement and Sereno’s inability to show proof of her filing said SALNs conclusively established that she did not file them.

Finally, that former President Benigno Simeon Aquino III eventually appointed Sereno as Chief Justice did not cure her ineligibility and lack of integrity. In Maquiling v. COMELEC, [18] the Court ruled that qualifications for public office must be possessed at the time of appointment and assumption to office and during the officer’s entire tenure as a continuing requirement. Hence, the Court found Sereno to have unlawfully held the position of, and exercised the powers vested in, the Chief Justice.

III. QUO WARRANTO PETITIONS POST- SERENO

People have expressed fears that a quo warranto petition may be weaponized against any public officer, impeachable or not. After Sereno , some quo warranto petitions have made headlines locally. In 2018, former presidential candidate Elly Pamatong filed such an action against President Rodrigo Duterte. He claimed that President Duterte was not qualified to become President when the latter filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) in the 2016 elections because he initially filed his COC for mayor of Davao City. [19] Solicitor General Jose Calida (SolGen Calida) sought to have the petition dismissed for false allegations because the COMELEC already affirmed Duterte’s COC as valid and effective. [20] Interestingly, SolGen Calida said that Pamatong’s petition “trivialized the rules of procedure.”

In February last year, SolGen Calida filed a quo warranto petition against broadcasting network ABS-CBN for unlawfully exercising its franchise by broadcasting for a fee and allowing foreign investors to participate in the network’s ownership. [21] The House of Representatives went on recess in March 2020 without tackling ABS-CBN’s franchise application, and on May 4, the franchise expired. The following day, the network went off the air. On June 23, the Court dismissed the quo warranto petition for being moot, following the expiration of the network’s franchise. [22] In July, the House Committee on Legislative Franchises denied the franchise renewal of ABS-CBN.

The latest OSG-initiated quo warranto petition was against incumbent Associate Justice Leonen. Last year, some individuals attempted to retrieve Justice Leonen’s SALNs from the Office of the Ombudsman and found that some of his SALNs were not on file. Manila Times columnist Rigoberto Tiglao wrote that he had previously requested for copies of Leonen’s SALNs from the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman replied to his request and stated that Justice Leonen had missing SALNs on file, specifically for the years that he was still working at the University of the Philippines. [23] However, the Office of the Court Administrator rebuffed his similar request and noted that such documents are considered privileged communication. Lawyer Larry Gadon also sought to have copies of Leonen’s copies, but the Court firmly rejected his request. [24] To recall, Gadon filed an impeachment complaint against Sereno in 2017 and assisted in the filing of the impeachment complaint against Justice Leonen last year.

The alleged non-filing of SALNs is reminiscent of the same ground which caused the ouster of Sereno. Making a case out of this, the OSG appealed to the Court to release the SALNs of Justice Leonen in preparation for a possible quo warranto proceeding against him. [25] However, the Court rebuffed the OSG’s unrelenting pursuit of Justice Leonen’s SALNs and reiterated the procedures for entertaining any request for copies of SALNs and personal data sheets of Supreme Court Justices and officers and employees of the Judiciary. [26] The OSG’s request met a similar fate in the hands of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines (UP-BOR). In the Minutes of the UP-BOR Meeting, [27] the Board of Regents deliberated on the OSG’s requests for copies of Justice Leonen’s SALNs from the University of the Philippines. It decided not to grant these requests in light of the Court’s earlier denial of the same requests from the OSG and pending legal advice.

Certain quarters in the political arena forayed once again in filing an impeachment complaint, this time against Justice Leonen, seeking refuge in the landmark Sereno ruling that the non-filing of SALNs reflects on a public official’s integrity. Promptly, private citizen Edwin Cordevilla filed an impeachment complaint against Justice Leonen on December 7, 2020. Ilocos Norte Rep. Angelo Marcos Barba, the cousin of defeated Vice-Presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr., promptly endorsed the complaint. The Speaker of the House of Representatives eventually calendared the impeachment complaint and later on referred the same before the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives per House Rules. Based on the minutes of the meeting held on May 27, 2021, [28] the Committee on Justice, chaired by Leyte Rep. Vicente Veloso III, deliberated on the impeachment complaint, which cited three grounds:

The respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution for failing to dispose of at least 37 cases within 24 months as mandated under Section 15 (1), Article VIII, in relation to Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, which mandates the prompt action and speedy disposition of cases;
The respondent arbitrarily delayed the resolution of cases pending before him as chairperson of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); and
The respondent failed to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for a total of 15 years while working at the University of the Philippines.

On the same day and in the same meeting, the House Committee on Justice ruled that the impeachment complaint was insufficient in form. The Committee members found that none of the documents annexed to the complaint are authentic or certified true copies, in violation of the impeachment rules of the House. The members also noted that Cordevilla could not show that he has personal knowledge of the facts in his complaint or the acts and omissions that the complaint attributes to Justice Leonen. The members considered as hearsay the allegations supported only by annexed news articles. [29]

IV. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE THREAT OF QUO WARRANTO

Legal precedents bind Supreme Court decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis . Sereno put into the fore the nature of a quo warranto action and laid the doctrine that impeachable officials may be removed from office if they lacked the qualifications required before and during the holding of such office. Many perceive that the OSG is using the petition against personalities that have earned the administration’s ire.

It is no secret that President Duterte publicly threatened to block ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal. While he could not legally do so, his allies in the House of Representatives made sure they carried out his will. Amid House hearings on the franchise renewal, the OSG hedged its bets and filed a quo warranto petition against the network.

The impeachment complaint against Justice Leonen assails his “lack of integrity for failure to file his SALNs” and “negligence and incompetence for failing to dispose of the cases assigned to him in violation of the Constitution.” As if on cue, the OSG also sought to access Justice Leonen’s SALNs for a possible quo warranto proceeding, but to no avail.

Has the Court inadvertently allowed the OSG to use the quo warranto action to threaten critical or “unfriendly” personalities? While the Court resolved Sereno as a legal matter, its ramifications have caused serious effects on local politics.

To be clear, Court did not start the politicization or weaponization of a quo warranto action. It merely clarified its use as a remedy under procedural law and applied it in Sereno . The Court cannot judge the intention of quo warranto petitioners because it is not a trier of facts. Besides, its judicial independence transcends the changes in the political landscape where the other two co-equal branches reside.

However, it may be reasonable for the Court to discuss the procedure for filing a quo warranto petition against impeachable officials. It should establish the proper court jurisdiction for such an action, particularly applying the recent clarification on the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in Gios-Samar v. DOTC and CAAP. [30] It may even consider the imposition of penalties for people who trivialize a quo warranto petition to achieve personal or political wins.

When an opportunity presents itself, the Court must take steps in harmonizing differing interpretations of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, [31] commonly referred to as the SALN Law. Because of the precedent-setting Sereno ruling on the relationship between a public official’s integrity and his (or her) non-filing of SALNs, there may soon be another case filed in courts involving the same or very similar issue. The Court must settle the to preserve the country’s political structure and restore public trust in the government. Decisive action in favoring the greater good transcends even the most powerful, albeit impermanent, politicians and power players in the country.

The Court must quash any attempt to seek the perversion of justice through shrewd maneuvers to poke holes into its decisions. It must not venture into any game of semantics and provide our legal system with the correct reading of the law. The Court’s infallibility resides not in the composition of sitting Justices or the brilliance of its decisions but in the fact that it is the “court of last resort.” With this in mind, the Court must express its wisdom on this matter before waiting for an actual controversy to avoid making its decision more controversial than the controversy already found therein.

[1] UST Law Review, Staff Member.

[2] G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018.

[4] Id. at 48.

[5] CONST., art VI, sec 3.

[6] Official Gazette, Impeachment: A Political and Historical Guide, https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/interactive-a-primer-on-impeachment/ (last accessed June 4, 2021).

[7] The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015.

[8] Id. , note 2, at 24. This Latin phrase means “no time runs against the king.”

[9] Id. , at 76

[10] Id. , at 90-96.

[11] CONST., art VIII, sec 7(3): A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

[12] CONST., art VIII, sec 8(5): The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

[13] Id. , note 2, at 120.

[14] 498 Phil. 395 (2005).

[15] Id. Based on a letter sent by the Acting Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 155, RTC, Pasig City.

[16] Id. ,note 2, at 101.

[17] Id., at 102.

[18] 709 Phil. 408 (2013).

[19] Tetch Torres-Tupas, Calida asks SC to junk quo warranto case vs Duterte, September 3, 2018, https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/ 1027861/calida-asks-sc-to-junk-quo-warranto-case-vs-duterte (last accessed February 3, 2021).

[20] Edu Punay, SC asked to junk quo warranto case vs Duterte, September 4, 2018, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/09/04/1848562/sc-asked-junk-quo-warranto-case-vs-duterte (last accessed February 2, 2021).

[21] OSG files petition for quo warranto vs ABS-CBN; asks SC to forfeit legislative franchise, February 10, 2020, https:/ /pia.gov.ph/news/articles/1034298 (last accessed February 3, 2021).

[22] Rey Panaligan, SC junks quo warranto complaint vs ABS-CBN, June 30, 2020, https://mb.com.ph/2020/06/23/sc-junks-quo-warranto-complaint-vs-abs-cbn/ (last accessed February 1, 2021).

[23] Rigoberto Tiglao, Leonen failed to file his SALNs like Sereno, but for more years, September 7, 2020, https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/ 09/07/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/leonen-failed-to-file-his-salns-like-sereno-but-for-more-years/765590 (last accessed June 07, 2021).

[24] Joel San Juan, SC affirms rejection of Gadon request for Leonen’s SALN, November 3, 2020, https://businessmirror.com.ph/2020/11/03/sc-affirms-rejection-of-gadon-request-for-leonens-saln/ (last accessed June 07, 2021).

[25] Jomar Canlas, OSG readies quo warranto vs Leonen, November 2, 2020, https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/11/02/news/ national/osg-readies-quo-warranto-vs-leonen/790244/ (last accessed February 3, 2021).

[26] A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13, 2012.

[27] The University of the Philippines Gazette, Decisions of the Board of Regents, 1356 th Meeting, Volume LI Issue Number 7, November 26, 2020, (last accessed June 05, 2021).

[28] House of Representatives, Committee Daily Bulletin, p. 12-13, in Vol. II No. 168, 18 th Congress, Second Regular Session, (May 27, 2021).

[29] Id ., at 13.

[30] G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019. Speaking through Justice Jardeleza, the Court En Banc ruled that: “Accordingly, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reiterate that when a question before the Court involves determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution of the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the case. Such question must first be brought before the proper trial courts or the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try and resolve factual questions.”

[31] An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, to Uphold the Time-Honored Principle of Public Office Being a Public Trust, Granting Incentives and Rewards for Exemplary Service, Enumerating Prohibited Acts and Transactions and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 6713, (1989).

Maynilad v. Secretary of DENR: Integration of the Public Trust Doctrine for the Protection of the Environment

More Networks

LEXIS AND COMPANY

Search this blog, understanding the writ of quo warranto: a detailed exploration.

The writ of quo warranto is a legal remedy used to challenge the authority or legitimacy of an individual or entity to hold a particular office or exercise a specific privilege. This ancient legal concept, rooted in English common law, serves as a mechanism for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that power is exercised lawfully and within prescribed limits. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the origins, principles, applications, and significance of the writ of quo warranto.

Origins of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Medieval england.

The writ of quo warranto traces its origins to medieval England, where it emerged as a means of challenging the authority of individuals who claimed certain rights or privileges without proper authorization. It was used to prevent abuses of power and maintain order in society.

Common Law Tradition

Quo warranto became a staple of the English legal system, providing a mechanism for enforcing legal norms and holding individuals and entities accountable for their actions. Its principles were later incorporated into other legal systems influenced by English common law.

Principles of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Authority to act.

At its core, the writ of quo warranto questions the authority or legitimacy of an individual or entity to hold a particular office, franchise, or privilege. It requires the respondent to demonstrate by what warrant or authority they claim the right in question.

Public Interest

Quo warranto proceedings are initiated in the public interest, with the goal of ensuring that power is exercised lawfully and for the public good. They serve as a means of holding public officials and corporate entities accountable for their actions.

Applications of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Government accountability.

Quo warranto is often used to challenge the eligibility of individuals holding public office or exercising governmental authority. It ensures that elected officials and appointed representatives meet the legal qualifications for their positions.

Corporate Governance

In the realm of corporate governance, quo warranto may be invoked to challenge the legality of corporate charters or the actions of corporate officers and directors. It provides a means of enforcing legal standards and protecting shareholder interests.

Significance of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Rule of law.

The availability of quo warranto reinforces the rule of law by ensuring that power is exercised lawfully and in accordance with prescribed legal norms. It prevents abuses of authority and promotes transparency and accountability in government and corporate affairs.

Legal Remedies

Quo warranto proceedings may result in various legal remedies, including the ouster of unlawfully holding individuals from office, the forfeiture of corporate charters, or the imposition of fines or penalties for violations of the law.

In conclusion, the writ of quo warranto stands as a cornerstone of legal accountability and governance, ensuring that power is exercised lawfully and in the public interest. Rooted in centuries of legal tradition, this ancient remedy serves as a bulwark against abuses of authority and upholds the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law. By providing a means of challenging the legitimacy of individuals and entities to hold office or exercise privileges, quo warranto plays a vital role in safeguarding democratic principles and protecting the rights and interests of the public.

Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court

High Court Judgments

Delhi High Court
Allahabad High Court
Bombay High Court
Calcutta High Court
Madras High Court
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Andhra High Court
Chattisgarh High Court
Gauhati High Court
Gujarat High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jharkhand High Court
Karnataka High Court
Kerala High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meghalaya High Court
Manipur High Court
Orissa High Court
Patna High Court
Rajasthan High Court
Sikkim High Court
Tripura High Court
Telangana High Court
Uttarakhand High Court
Arbitration
Conciliation

Campus Buzz

Call for Papers
Conferences & Seminars
Courses & Workshops
Debate Competitions
Essay Competitions
Fellowships
Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions
International Opportunities
Internships
Moot Court Competitions
Scholarships
Legal Documents
Legal Forms for Advocates
Legal Dictionary
SC Collegium Resolutions
Law Commission of India Reports
NCRB Reports
Justice Verma Committee Report, 2013
Justice BN Srikrishna Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration
Legal Maxims
Web Links Directory

Legal Education

Law School Entrance Exams
Law Schools and Colleges in India
Overseas Law Schools
Careers in Law

Circulars & Notices

RBI Circulars
RBI Notices
SEBI Circulars
SEBI Notices
MCA Circulars
MCA Notices
Supreme Court Calendar 2023
Supreme Court Bar Association
Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record
All High Courts Calendar
High Courts Portals
Judicial Exam Notice Board
Judicial Services Exam Question Papers
Bar Councils
Bar Associations

Recent News

Analysis of types of writs under constitution of india: landmark cases by: tanu kapoor.

The Author, Tanu Kapoor is a 1st year student of Rajiv Gandhi National Law University. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

Introduction

Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution provide two separate but parallel provisions of writ jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively. Article 32 has been incorporated as a fundamental right and it provides for the constitutional remedy against the violation of fundamental rights. This remedy is limited to the violation of fundamental rights only under Article 32.

However, it is guaranteed under Article 32(2) and as per specific provision of Article 32(4) it cannot be suspended otherwise, except, as provided under the Constitution. Therefore, the right to move the Supreme is almost an absolute right and guaranteed under the Constitution itself except in case of suspension of this right as' provided under the Constitution (emergency provisions). Though to grant relief or not to grant is absolutely the discretion of the Supreme Court but the apex court can be moved for violation of fundamental right as a matter of right. But to this limited extent, it is a different matter with the High Court.

The provision of Article 226 is a constitutional provision, but it is not a fundamental right. There is no guarantee attached to it unlike Article 32. The scope of Article 226 is wider than that of Article 32 because the operation of Article 226 is not limited to violation of fundamental rights only, but it can be operated for other purposes also. However, in entertaining the writs, the High Court enjoys wide and open powers as a matter of discretion. It is a plenary power of the High Court without any fatter from any provision of the Constitution. Since it is an extraordinary jurisdiction with the High Court, it has no! to be resorted to in routine. The basic objective of this power is to ensure justice wherever the miscarriage of justice is manifest.

The High Court has to reach the remotest comer of justice to eliminate injustice. The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance.

TYPES OF WRITS (i) Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ii) Writ of Mandamus, (iii) Writ of Certiorari, (iv) Writ of Prohibition, (v) Writ of Quo-Warranto,

Writ of Habeas Corpus: It is the most valuable writ for personal liberty. Habeas Corpus means, "Let us have the body." A person, when arrested, can move the Court for the issue of Habeas Corpus. It is an order by a Court to the detaining authority to produce the arrested person before it so that it may examine whether the person has been detained lawfully or otherwise. If the Court is convinced that the person is illegally detained, it can issue orders for his release. A writ of habeas corpus derived from Latin word means "you may have the body" is a writ (court order) that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. The principle of habeas corpus ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention—that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoner's aid. This right originated in the English legal system, and is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. It has been extended to non-police authorities, as in the 1898 Queen's Bench case of Ex Parte Dorothy Hopkins, which has successfully been utilized more recently in India to liberate a woman from a madrasa.

Who can apply for the Writ

The general rule is that an application can be made by a person who is illegally detained. but in certain cases an application of habeas corpus can be made by any person on behalf of the prisoner, ie, a Friend or a Relatives. A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the "great writ", is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond his authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Habeas corpus has certain limitations. It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial.

When it will lie

The writ of habeas corpus will lie if the power of detention vested in an authority was exercised mala fide and is made in collateral or ulterior purposes. but if the detention is justified the high court will not grant the writ of habeas corpus. In Sunil Bhatra V/S Delhi Administration [1] it has been held that the writ of habeas corpus can be issued not only for releasing a person from illegal detention but also for protecting prisoners from the inhuman and barbarous treatment. the dynamic role of judicial remedies imports to the habeas corpus writ a versatile vitality and operational utility as bastion of liberty even within jails. In Veena Sethi V/S State Of Bihar [2] In this case it was held that the court was informed through a letter that some prisoners, who were insane at the time of trial but subsequently declared sane, were not released due to inaction of state authorities and had to remain in jails from 20 to 30 years. the court directed they be released forthwith. In D.S Nakara v/s Union of India [3] in this case it was held that a registered societies, non-political, non-profit making and voluntary organizations are entitled to file a writ petition ie, habeas corpus under article 32 of the constitution for espousing the cause for the large number of old infirm pensioners who are unable to approach the court individually. We command you, that the body of A.B. in Our prison under your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his taking and detention, by whatever name the said A.B. may be known therein, you have at our Court ... to undergo and to receive that which our Court shall then and there consider and order in that behalf. Hereof in no way fail, at your peril. And have you then there this writ. The habeas writ was used in the Rajan case, a student victim of torture in local police custody during the nationwide Emergency in India in 1976.On 12th March 2014, Subrata Roy's counsel approached the Chief Justice moving a habeas corpus petition. It was also filed by Panthers Party to protest the imprisonment of Anna Hazare, a social activist.

(II) The Writ of Mandamus: Mandamus is a Latin word, which means "We Command". Mandamus is an order from a superior court to a lower court or tribunal or public authority to perform an act, which falls within its duty. It is issued to secure the performance of public duties and to enforce private rights withheld by the public authorities. Simply, it is a writ issued to a public official to do a thing which is a part of his official duty, but, which, he has failed to do, so far. This writ cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is the discretionary power of a court to issue such writs. The primary purpose of this writ is to make the Government machinery work properly. An order of mandamus is a command directed to any person, corporation or an inferior tribunal, requiring them to do some particular thing which pertains to their/his office and which is in the nature of a public duty. The public servants are responsible to the public for the lawfulness of their public duties and their actions under it. If a public authority fails to do what is required under law or does beyond what was to be done, a writ of mandamus may be issued to make him do what was required under law. Mandamus may also be issued to a tribunal to compel it to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, which it has refused to exercise. Mandamus may also be issued where there is a specific legal right, without specific remedy for enforcement of such right and unreasonableness has no place. The Supreme Court in various decisions has held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is akin to natural justice, reasonableness and promissory estoppel.

Thus the writ or order in the nature of mandamus would be issued when there is a failure to perform a mandatory duty. but even in the cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duty the party must show that he has made a distinct demand to enforce that duty and demand was met with refusal.

the writ of mandamus can only be granted when there is in the applicant a right to compel the performance of some duty cast upon the authority. the duty sought to be enforced must be a public duty and not a private duty.
Thus writ of mandamus can be issued to public authority to restrain it from acting under a law which has been declared unconstitutional.
the writ of mandamus can be granted only in cases where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned, and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.

When it will not lie

The writ of mandamus cannot be granted in case of following circumstances 1. when the duty is merely discretionary 2. against a private individual or any private organization because they are not entrusted with public duty. 3. A writ of mandamus cannot be granted to enforce an obligation arising out of contract.

The Writ of Certiorari:

Literally, Certiorari means to be certified. The Writ of Certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court to some inferior court or tribunal to transfer the matter to it or to some other superior authority for proper consideration. The Writ of Certiorari can be issued by the Supreme Court or any High Court for quashing the order already passed by an inferior court. In other words, while the prohibition is available at the earlier stage, Certiorari is available on similar grounds at a later stage. It can also be said that the Writ of prohibition is available during the tendency of proceedings before a sub-ordinate court, Certiorari can be resorted to only after the order or decision has been announced. In Province of Bombay v/s Khushaldas [4] In this case it was held that whenever anybody of person having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially acts in excess of their legal authority, a writ of certiorari will lies. it does not lie to remove merely ministerial act or to remove or cancel executive administrative acts. Writ lies on Judicial bodies one of the fundamental principles in regard to the issuing of a writ of certiorari is that the writ can be availed of only to remove or to adjudicate upon the validity of judicial acts. the expression judicial acts includes the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by administrative bodies or authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions and is used in contrast which are purely ministerial acts. the supreme court has laid down two propositions for ascertaining whether an authority is to act judicially-- 1. if a statute empowers a authority to decide disputes arising out of claim made by one party under the statute, which claim is opposed by another party, then prima facie and in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary is the duty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of authority is a quasi judicial act. 2. if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject then although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the final determination of authority will be a quasi-judicial act provided that the authority is required by the statue to act judicially. Grounds on which writ can be issued.

The writ of certiorari can be issued to judicial and quasi-judicial body on the following grounds 1. where there is want or excess of jurisdiction The writ of certiorari is issued to a body performing judicial or quasi judicial function for correcting errors of the jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it or fails to exercise it. the want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of subject matter so that the inferior court has no authority to enter on the inquiry or upon some part of it. want of jurisdiction may also arise from absence of some preliminary proceeding or upon the existence of some particular facts which are necessary to the exercise of the courts power and the court wrongly assume that the particular condition exists. 2. For correcting error of law apparent on the face of record the writ is also issued for correcting an error of law apparent on the face of record. it cannot be issued to correct an error of fact. what is an error of law apparent on the face of record is to be decided by the courts on the facts of each case. In Hari Vishnu v/s Ahmed Ishaque [5] the Supreme Court held that no error could be said to be error on the face of record if it was not self-evident and it required an examination and argument to establish it. an arror of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ of certiorari but not an error of fact, howsoever grave it may appear to be. the reason for rule is that the court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in a supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction. accordingly it cannot substitute its own decision on the merits of the case or give direction to be complied with by the inferior court or tribunal. 3. Disregard of principle of natural justice

(IV) The Writ of Prohibition: Writ of prohibition means to forbid or to stop and it is popularly known as 'Stay Order'. This Writ is issued when a lower court or a body tries to transgress the limits or powers vested in it. It is a Writ issued by a superior court to lower court or a tribunal forbidding it to perform an act outside its jurisdiction. After the issue of this Writ proceedings in the lower court etc. come to a stop. The Writ of prohibition is issued by any High Court or the Supreme Court to any inferior court, prohibiting the latter to continue proceedings in a particular case, where it has no legal jurisdiction of trial. While the Writ of mandamus commands doing of particular thing, the Writ of prohibition is essentially addressed to a subordinate court commanding inactivity. Writ of prohibition is, thus, not available against a public officer not vested with judicial or quasi-judicial powers. The Supreme Court can issue this Writ only where a fundamental right is affected. A writ of prohibition is issued primarily to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction in cases pending before it or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice. It is issued by a superior court to inferior courts from usurping a jurisdiction with which it was not legally vested, or in other words to compel inferior courts to keep within the limits of their jurisdiction. Thus the writ is issued in both cases where there is excess of jurisdiction and where there is absence of jurisdiction S. Govind Menon Vs. Union Of India [6] Prohibition is not a continuation of the proceedings to be prohibited. Its object is on the contrary to arrest the inferior tribunal's proceedings. It is a collateral matter progress essentially between the two tribunals, an inferior one and other superior one by which the latter, by virtue its power of superintendence over the former, restrains it within its rightful competence. Its nature is held to depend upon the nature of proceeding to be prohibited. The writ can be issued only when the proceedings are pending in a court if the proceeding has matured into decision, writ will not lie. When the court, before whom the matter is pending, has ceased to exist, in that condition too, the writ of prohibition will not lie because there can be no proceedings upon which it can operate but on the other hand, if the court is functioning, the writ can be issued at any stage of the proceeding before the inferior court or tribunal. It can be issued only against a judicial or legislative functions.

(V) The Writ of Quo-Warranto: The word Quo-Warranto literally means "by what warrants?" It is a writ issued with a view to restraining a person from acting in a public office to which he is not entitled. The Writ of quowarranto is used to prevent illegal assumption of any public office or usurpation of any public office by anybody. For example, a person of 62 years has been appointed to fill a public office whereas the retirement age is 60 years. Now, the appropriate High Court has a right to issue a Writ of quo-warranto against the person and declare the office vacant.

Who can apply

A writ of Qua-Warranto can be claimed by a person if he satisfy the court that— 1. the office in question is public office 2. it is held by a person without legal authority the writ of Qua Warranto is not issued in respect of an office of a private character. thus in Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v/s Dr. D. Ram [7] in this case it was held that the high court refused to issue a writ Qua Warranto against the members of the working committee on the Bihar Arya Samaj Sabha, a private association. The meaning of the term Quo Warranto is ‘by what authority’. The writ of quo warranto may be issued against a person holding a public office or governmental privilege. The issue of summon is followed by legal proceedings, during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged. The writ requires the concerned person to explain to the Court by what authority he holds the office. Although a writ of mandamus can also be issued on the grounds of mala fides and arbitrariness, but when the office is filled up, a writ of quo-warranto is preferable. Mandamus is desirable to be issued when the office is vacant.

[1] AIR 1980 SC 1795

[2] AIR 1983 SC 339

[3] 1983 1 SCC 304

[4] AIR 1950 SC 22

[5] AIR 1955 SC 223

[6] AIR 1967 SC 1274

[7] AIR 1954 Pat 297

Picture Source :

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

LatestLaws Partner Event : 3rd Arbitrate In India Conclave 2024

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

Advance articles
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
Why Publish with EHR?
About The English Historical Review
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Books for Review
Terms and Conditions
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Quo Warranto and Borough Corporations in Early Stuart England: Royal Prerogative and Local Privileges in the Central Courts

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Catherine Patterson, Quo Warranto and Borough Corporations in Early Stuart England: Royal Prerogative and Local Privileges in the Central Courts, The English Historical Review , Volume 120, Issue 488, September 2005, Pages 879–906, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cei239

Permissions Icon Permissions

Quo Warranto proceedings have long been interpreted as one of the means by which the English crown attempted to enforce its will on local people. The later Stuarts used this tool to redraw borough constitutions, as even the charter of the city of London came into question under the pressure of quo warranto . This article takes a close look at the use of this prerogative writ in the early seventeenth century in reference to incorporated boroughs, and reveals a more complicated story of relations between crown and local government. It argues that quo warranto resulted in many instances not from the intentions of the crown to curb local franchises, but rather from internal struggles in a locality that were brought to the attention of the central courts by local people. While many towns encountered quo warranto proceedings at some point in the early seventeenth century, very few suffered any significant loss of privileges as a result. At the same time, the crown did view quo warranto as one way to gain its own ends vis-à-vis incorporated towns. The 1630s, in particular, saw some cases of quo warranto being used to punish or constrain town governments considered errant. While its legal impact may have been muted, quo warranto had, by the time of the calling of the Long Parliament, become associated with a perception of arbitrary power.

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code
Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with username/password
Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Month:	Total Views:
February 2017	3
March 2017	2
April 2017	1
August 2017	1
October 2017	1
November 2017	3
December 2017	6
January 2018	2
February 2018	3
March 2018	2
April 2018	2
May 2018	5
June 2018	2
July 2018	1
October 2018	3
February 2019	2
March 2019	1
April 2019	3
July 2019	2
August 2019	1
September 2019	1
January 2020	3
February 2020	5
March 2020	1
April 2020	2
July 2020	1
August 2020	2
September 2020	2
October 2020	1
November 2020	2
December 2020	2
January 2021	1
April 2021	1
May 2021	1
June 2021	1
July 2021	1
August 2021	2
November 2021	5
December 2021	7
January 2022	1
March 2022	2
August 2022	1
September 2022	1
October 2022	4
November 2022	5
January 2023	3
May 2023	1
June 2023	1
July 2023	5
October 2023	4
November 2023	1
January 2024	1
February 2024	1
March 2024	11
June 2024	1
July 2024	1

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1477-4534
Print ISSN 0013-8266
Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

QUO WARRANTO :- Legal Maxim

Written by AmolGK

Updated on: April 14, 2024

Table of Contents

Quo Warranto : Latin Maxim- Our Legal World

Introduction.

Quo-warranto is the name of the writ by which an action is commenced for recovering of an office of franchise from the person or authority possessing the same without valid title to the office and/or usurping the same. It is the remedy which is applied by the Court to inquire the validity in legal terms, of the contention which a party states to an office and to leave him from its possession if the contention is to have been declared forfeited. [i]

Information in the nature of quo warranto is the modern form of the ancient writ of quo warranto which lay against a person, who claimed or seized an office, to examine by what authority she supported her assertion which in consequently determines the right to the office. [ii]

Meaning of the Maxim

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, [iii]

The Latin Maxim, Quo warranto, literally means ‘by what warrant? or authority?

A common-law writ used to examine the authority of a public office held.
An action by which the court may revoke a corporation’s position.

Constitutional Provisions

According to our Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs in the nature of abeas corpus , mandamus, certiorari , prohibition and quo warranto , under Articles 32 and 226 respectively.

The object behind investing these power within the Supreme Court and High Courts, for the remedy against the infringement of fundamental rights in the big country like India, was to ensure the effective remedy for an aggrieved citizen or person.

Also Read: Pendente Lite Nihil Innovetur- Legal Maxim

Article 32 , authorizes the Supreme Court to use the power to grant remedies for enforcement of the fundamental rights, conferred by the Part III of the Constitution. Section(2) of the Article reads as,

“(2)The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition , quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.”

Article 226 , empowers High Courts to issue certain writs, not only for the remedy against breach of Fundamental Rights, conferred by Part III, but also for any other purpose. We may put this as High Courts power to issue writs for remedies are wider than that of the Supreme Court’s. The Section (1) of the Article reads as,

“(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari , or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”

Explanation of the Maxim

According to Justice B P Banerjee, [iv] the procedure of quo-warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the Court to control executive action in the matter of making an appointment to public office against relevant statutory provisions.

It leads to protect the public from seizure of public office; in some cases persons who is not eligible to the public office may be allowed to engage them and continue to occupy them as a result of collusion of executive. In this case jurisdiction of the Court to issue writ of quo-warranto is rightly invoked, who has seized the office can be ousted and eligible person to the post can be allowed replace.

WHO MAY APPLY

A writ of quo-warranto may be applied at the instance of any person even a stranger, who has no personal or special interest. This is an exception to the general rule of locus standi applicable in case of Mandamus, Certiorari and/or Prohibition , where before a person can apply for a writ it has to be established that her legal right has been breached or she was prejudicially harmed by an act or omission of the authority. [v]

THE OFFICE MUST BE OF PUBLIC NATURE

The writ is granted only in respect of office which is public in nature. The office must be independently entitled and not held by one discharging the functions at the will and pleasure of others. To warrant a Court in entering an information in the nature of quo-warranto a case must be presented in which public have some interest.

There are three tests which can be applied to determine whether information will lie, A) source of the office, B) its tenure and C) its duty. Source of the office should be from the sovereign authority, by legislative enactment, it should have the fixed tenure and that too permanent and nature of its duty should be of a public. [vi]

ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

Proceeding in quo warranto will not be entertained when writ of mandamus affords appropriate and fitting remedy. When under the constitution of a statute, power to determine the election, the returns and qualifications of members of legislature is vested exclusively in each house as to its own members, the Courts cannot entertain their jurisdiction in quo warranto to determine the position of a member of the legislative body. In such a case, constitution having expressly lodged the power of determining such question in another body, the court cannot assume jurisdiction in quo warranto but will leave the question to the Tribunal fixed by the Constitution. [vii]

BURDEN OF PROOF

According to the general rule the burden of proof is on the respondent. When the Court calls upon the respondent to prove her title to the office she must show the continued existence of all qualifications necessary to its enjoyment. She must set out the claim specifically and prove it on the face of the answer that she has a valid claim. Hence the entire burden of proof is on the respondent.

DISCRETION OF THE COURT

Quo warranto is not a writ of right. The Court has a discretion to grant or refuse to grant it according to the facts and circumstances of each case. [viii]

The Court would inquire into the conducts and motives of the applicant. [ix]

The Court might in its discretion decline to grant quo-warranto —

(a)Where it would be vexatious to do so [x] .

(b)Where the application would be futile in its results. [xi]

(c)Where there was an alternative remedy which was equally appropriate and effective. [xii]

We can conclude that it is a writ calling upon one to show by what warrant he holds or claims a franchise or office. It is a remedy to protect the rights of the individual against the misuse of the public office.

[i] Justice B P Banerjee : Writ Remedies- Remediable Rights under public Law
[ii] P Ramanatha Aiyar Advanced Law Lexicon
[iii] the Black’s Law Dictionary, (11th ed. 2019)
[iv] Justice B P Banerjee : Writ Remedies- Remediable Rights under public law.
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1885/Constitutional-philosophy-of-Writs:-A-detailed-analysis.html
[vi] University of Mysore v. Govind Rao , AIR 1965 SC 491
[vii] Justice B P Banerjee : Writ Remedies- Remediable Rights under public law.
[viii] T.K. Kothandaram Dr. v. Secretary to the Shah Commission, New Delhi , MLJ : YD 1978 Suppl C 579 : (1978) 2 An WR 269.
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1938195/?formInput=article%2032
[ix] Everett v. Griffiths , (1924) 1 KB 941 .
[x] R. v. Ward , (1873) LR 8 QB 210 at 213.
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1171702/?big=2&formInput=article%2032
[xi] R. v. Fox , (1858) 8E & B 939; Ex parte Richards, (1878) 3 QBD 368; R. v. Speyer, (1916) 2 KB 858.
[xii] R. v. Grosvernor , (1733) Kel W 280; Bradley v. Sylvester, (1871) 25 LT 459 at 460.

Edited by- Ankita Roy

Foss v. Harbottle; 1843: Case Study

Ambit of freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions.

AOR Exam Leading Cases Supreme Court

Cuet pg llm syllabus 2024: subject-wise syllabus details, what to look for in a criminal lawyer, sources and schools of hindu marriage act, 1955, leave a comment cancel reply.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Latest News

Tax Law Internship Opportunity at Legum Attorney (Chamber of Adv Ashish Panday), Delhi:- [Customs Law, GST, Income Tax]

Surana & surana and school of excellence in law, tamil nadu dr.ambedkar law university national trial advocacy moot court.

Join Our Legal World Team: Exciting Opportunities Await! Apply Now

Call for Campus Ambassadors by Our Legal World [2 Months; Virtual]: Apply by June 15

Online Law Internship in IPR & Technology Law at Our Legal World

Law Internship in IPR & Tax Law at Our Legal World

International Law Summit: 4th Bombay Bar Association - Government Law College International Law Summit, 2024

4th Bombay Bar Association – GLC International Law Summit, 2024

TAX LAWS CLUB

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

General Knowledge /

What is a Writ of Quo Warranto?

Updated on
Mar 18, 2024

A Writ of Quo Warranto is a legal remedy to challenge the authority of a person holding public office or a corporate position. Additionally, it aims to inquire into the legitimacy of the person’s claim to hold that office. Hence guaranteeing they have the legal right or “warrant” to do so. Moreover, this Writ is a tool to prevent people from wrongfully occupying public offices or positions of power. Thus, protecting public interest as well as upholding the Rule of Law . Read on to know Quo Warranto in the Indian Constitution and a case Example!

Did you know? The Latin word Quo Warranto translates to “by what warrant or authority.”

What is Quo Warranto in the Indian Constitution?

The Writ of Quo Warranto in the Indian Constitution is in Article 226. This Article empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose.

Under this provision, if a person is holding a public office and there are doubts regarding their eligibility, qualification, or authority to hold such office, any person can file a petition to the High Court.
The Court can then issue a Writ of Quo Warranto against the concerned person. Thus, demanding them to prove their authority to hold the office in question.
Furthermore, it upholds the principles of accountability, transparency, and integrity in public service.

Also Read: Important Articles in Indian Constitution

Quo Warranto Example

In the case of the University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1965), the Supreme Court of India applied the Writ of Quo Warranto.

Here, the question was whether a person appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of a university had the required qualifications.
In addition, the Court held that the appointment was invalid since the person did not fulfil the qualifications.
Thus, this landmark case reaffirmed the significance of the Writ of Quo Warranto. Moreover, guarantees that people holding public offices or positions in institutions meet the necessary criteria.

Related Blogs

Lastly, we hope you liked our blog and gained an understanding of What is a Writ of Quo Warranto. Moreover, you may even read more blogs and empower yourself with knowledge regarding Civics and Polity!

Santana Daphne Antunis

A researcher, writer and traveller at heart. Talk to me about any topic under the sun, especially sustainability, art, music and photography.

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Writ of Quo Warranto: History, Scope, Evolution, and Landmark Judgements

Writ of quo warranto | overview introduction history, scope and evolution landmark judgements conclusion the writ of quo warranto – literally translating to “by what warrant (or authority)”—is a writ that dates back to mediaeval england. while largely obsolete in that form, it retains its significance in modern-day india, even if it is issued lesser than other writs.… read more ».

Writ of Quo Warranto | Overview

Introduction
History, Scope and Evolution
Landmark Judgements

The writ of quo warranto – literally translating to “by what warrant (or authority)?”—is a writ that dates back to mediaeval England. While largely obsolete in that form, it retains its significance in modern-day India, even if it is issued lesser than other writs.

This article discusses the writ of quo warranto by tracing its history, analysing its scope, and explicating its evolution into its current form. It also analyses two notable judgements surrounding the writ, one of which is a binding precedent and a definer of when the writ is to be issued in India.

I. Introduction

The writ of quo warranto—Mediaeval Latin for “by what warrant?” or “by what authority?”—is a prerogative writ issued to a person to show what authority they have to exercise a particular power. Typically, in modern usage, it is used to challenge a person’s right to hold a public or corporate office. [1]

This writ is generally used to verify the validity of the elections of government officials like mayors, advocates and attorneys general, members of the legislative councils (which are generally nominated), etc.

The power to issue this writ—as with the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari in India—is vested in the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 32 [2] and the various High Courts under Article 226 [3] of the Constitution of India.

II. History, Scope and Evolution

Quo warranto originally developed as a method for the king to determine the right of any person who “claims or usurps any office.” This remedy was civil, and if the king won in court, the usurper would be evicted from office or there would be a seizure by the crown. There was no fine or threat of imprisonment, however. [4]

This writ, however, fell into desuetude, and was replaced with an “information in the nature of quo warranto.” This carried the threat of criminal prosecution, and, therefore, jail time. [5]

The scope of the writ of quo warranto is relatively narrow. The writ of quo warranto, broadly speaking, can be issued against any person who holds an ‘independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty’. This is in line with mediaeval England’s interpretation of the writ till it was shelved in favour of the “information in the nature of quo warranto.”

The writ of quo warranto can also be wielded against corporations—not just government officials—who violate franchise.

As affirmed by the Delhi High Court, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Volume II, describes it as “a legal proceeding that is brought by the state, sovereign, or public officer, has a purpose similar to that of the ancient writ of quo warranto, is usually criminal in form and sometimes authorizes the imposition of a fine but is essentially civil in nature and seeks to correct often at the relation or on the complaint of a private person a usurpation, misuser, or nonuser of a public office or corporate or public franchise , and may result in judgments of ouster against individuals and of ouster and seizure against corporations.” [6]

In India, notably, along with the writ of habeas corpus, the rule of locus standi for the writ of quo warranto has been relaxed as well. Therefore, concerned citizens can file for a writ of quo warranto without being directly aggrieved.

III. Landmark Judgements

1. university of mysore v. c d govinda rao [7].

C D Govinda Rao had filed a writ of quo warranto under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Mysore High Court seeking to verify under what authority Anaiah Gowda was holding the post of Research Reader in a college in Bangalore.

The High Court ruled in favour of the University of Mysore, but the order was set aside by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court definitively set precedent for the writ of quo warranto in India, writing:

Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order.

In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right.

These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office, who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not . (emphasis mine)

Thus, the Court held that the following ingredients are necessary for a successful writ of quo warranto:

The office in question should be an independent substantive public office;
It should be held by a person without legal authority

2. Dr Y.S. Rajasekara Reddy v. Nara Chandra Babu Naidu [8]

In this case, office-bearers of the opposition Congress party sought the removal of the chief minister on grounds on non-performance of constitutional duties. The Andhra High Court, in this case, held that non-performance of constitutional duties did not constitute sufficient grounds to evict a chief minister from office:

A person duly elected cannot be ousted in quo warranto from his office through the process of Court… A mere misdemeanour would not ipso facto result in the forfeiture from acting in office. The actions of the public officer are subject to judicial review, which is the accepted basic feature of the Constitution. If he fails to perform his Constitutional duty or refuses to perform his duty, the Court will be within its right to issue appropriate writ or mandamus or injunction forcing the person to discharge his Constitutional duty.

The Courts would not disturb the affairs of the institution especially when all the elected representatives participated in Legislation and having failed on the Floor of the House or before the Court of the people i.e., the electors, cannot use the Courts as a lever to achieve their political ends.

It is again a well-recognised principle that where one neglects to perform a duty he is enjoined to perform by law, the grievance can be remedied by issuance of appropriate writ and cannot be remedied by quo warranto.

Thus, the Andhra High Court in a judgement authored by M.S. Lieberhan—of Lieberhan Commission fame—held that it other writs could be used to enforce a constitutional duty, but the writ of quo warranto was to be reserved for specific circumstances.

IV. Conclusion

The writ of quo warranto has a very specific target but its rules of locus standi are considerably relaxed compared to other writs. As we have discussed above, the writ of quo warranto can only be issued against an office that is independent, public, and substantive. However, anyone can pray for that writ.

The writ of quo warranto, moreover, “gives the judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against law and protect[s] a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right.” [9]

[1] “Quo warranto.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Available here .

[2] INDIAN CONST. art 32

[3] INDIAN CONST. art 226

[4] Richard C. Turrone, “Quo Warranto.” Hastings Law Journal. Available here .

[6] AIR 1975 Delhi 66 (emphasis mine).

[7] 1965 AIR 49.

[8] 1999 (6) ALD 623

[9] Ibid at note 8.

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
Online Exam Preparation – The Prep Destination

Kieran Correia

PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Quo warranto (rule 66).

The four-fold test in labor law

DOLE: Employees NOT to pay for company uniforms

Law to allow civil service exam passers to use 'CSE' suffix

Can mistress be held liable under RA 9262?

Penalties for theft (Art 309)

Kaso ng Maingay na Kapitbahay

Elements of frustrated homicide

Legal Research Assistance

Writ Of Quo Warranto & Relaxed Rules Of Locus Standi

In Gambhirdan K Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179, the Supreme Court, referring to an earlier judgment in Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731, observed that strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo warranto proceedings.

In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v . Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671, the Supreme Court had observed thus: This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this Rule is relaxed or modified. [ Also see Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribuna l (2002) 1 SCC 33 ]

Alice Guo faces quo warranto disqualification case filed by SolGen

Suspended Bamban Mayor Alice Guo —Marianne Bermudez

MANILA, Philippines — Embattled Mayor Alice Guo of Bamban, Tarlac province, now faces a quo warranto case that could lead to her removal from public office.

Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra on Monday filed a quo warranto petition against the suspended mayor before the Manila Regional Trial Court.

The case was assigned to Branch 34 of the Manila court under Judge Liwliwa Hidalgo-Bucu.

READ: Guo sighted in Bulacan; law enforcers urged to arrest mayor in a month

According to Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto petition is a legal action against a person who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise.”

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is mandated under the Rules of Court to commence a quo warranto action “when he has good reason to believe” that usurpation of public office can be established by proof.

Based on the OSG’s 45-page petition, Guo—by her very “ineligibility”—is “usurping or unlawfully holding the position” of the Office of the Mayor of Bamban, Tarlac, and “illegally exercising” its duties and responsibilities.

Nationality question

The OSG also extensively addressed Guo’s nationality, stating her Chinese name Guo Hua Ping and asserting that she is not Filipino.

It cited authenticated records showing that Guo Hua Ping, born in Fujian, China, on Aug. 31, 1990, was a holder of a Chinese passport.

“At its core, Filipino citizenship is a primary requirement for public officers, ensuring their unwavering loyalty and dedication to the nation,” the OSG said in its petition.

“As abundantly shown by various government records, respondent Guo Hua Ping, a.k.a. Alice Leal Guo is the daughter of two Chinese citizens, Lin Wenyi and Guo Jian Zhong,” the agency also said, thus affirming before the court earlier disclosures about the mayor.

The OSG said further that there was “no credible official record or document establishing that respondent Guo Hua Ping is a citizen of the Philippines, either by birth or by naturalization.”

It noted as well that there is no record in the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) of a birth certificate indicating her parents to be Angelito Guo and Amelia Leal, as she had claimed.

“These negative certifications, coupled with the documents showing that respondent Guo Hua Ping’s parents are Chinese nationals Guo Jian Zhong and Lin Wenyi, point to the fact that Angelito Guo and Amelia Leal Guo are fictitious individuals created for the sole purpose of falsifying respondent Guo Hua Ping’s birth records,” the OSG said.

It also argued that Guo committed acts of “serious dishonesty [by] representing herself as ‘Alice Leal Guo’ in all her public and private dealings—a name that is different from the name she registered with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) upon her entry [into] the Philippines.”

The OSG cited as well her “repeated misrepresentation” of herself as a Filipino citizen in her Filipino passport, voter’s registration records, and certificate of candidacy, as well as in her “failure to truthfully provide answers” in the Senate hearings on the Pogo (Philippine offshore gaming operator) industry.

So far, the OSG plans to present 11 witnesses—among them, officials of the BI, PSA, National Bureau of Investigation, and other agencies.

The Inquirer sought comment from Guo’s camp, but it had yet to respond on Monday night.

The last time the OSG resorted to a quo warranto petition was in March 2018, when then-Solicitor General Jose Calida sought to void Maria Lourdes Sereno’s 2012 appointment as chief justice following her criticism of the drug war of then President Rodrigo Duterte.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Sereno, who also faced opposition in the Supreme Court, was ousted two months later when the high court ruled in favor of Calida’s petition. One of her critics, Teresita de Castro, succeeded her as chief justice in August of that year.

News that matters

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

COVID-19 Full Coverage
Cover Stories
Ulat Filipino
Special Reports
Personal Finance
Other sports
Pinoy Achievers
Immigration Guide
Science and Research
Technology, Gadgets and Gaming
Chika Minute
Showbiz Abroad
Family and Relationships
Art and Culture
Health and Wellness
Shopping and Fashion
Hobbies and Activities
News Hardcore
Walang Pasok
Transportation
Missing Persons
Community Bulletin Board
GMA Public Affairs
State of the Nation
Unang Balita
Balitanghali
News TV Live

OSG asks Manila court to remove Alice Guo as Bamban mayor

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on Monday filed a quo warranto petition against suspended Bamban, Tarlac mayor Alice Guo, which may result in her removal from public office.

In the 45-page petition, the OSG asked the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 34 to declare Guo’s proclamation as Bamban mayor null and void and for her to be ousted.

The court was also asked to declare Guo as ineligible to hold the office of the mayor of Bamban and to declare her to have committed acts that warrant her forfeiture.

“This morning,” Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said in a message to reporters as he shared the first page of the petition.

In the petition filed with the RTC, the respondent was indicated as “Guo Hua Ping a.k.a. Alice Leal Guo.”

“Guo Hua Ping a.k.a Alice Leal Guo is unlawfully holding the position and illegally exercising the duties and responsibilities of the office of the mayor of Bamban, Tarlac,” Guevarra said when asked about the main grounds of the petition.

He argued that Guo is a Chinese national and is ineligible to run for office.

“As abundantly shown by various government records, respondent Guo Hua Ping a.k.a Alice Leal Guo is the daughter of two Chinese citizens, Lin Wenyi and Guo Jian Zhong,” the OSG said.

The OSG further said that Guo’s case does not involve naturalization proceedings, and argued that Guo committed acts that constitute a ground for the forfeiture of her office.

“More specifically, she has committed acts of serious dishonesty which, under the local government code, warrant her removal from office,” it said.

According to the petition, serious dishonesty is a ground for forfeiture from public office under Section 1(b), Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 60 of Republic Act 7160.

Aside from this, the OSG said Guo’s repeated misrepresentations in official government documents “are tainted with moral depravity.”

The office noted that Guo repeatedly stated in records that she was a Filipino citizen and maintained under oath that she was a Filipino. It said she also misrepresented the true identity of her parents.

“Certainly, the foregoing misrepresentations cannot be ignored as mere innocent lapses of memory,” it said.

GMA News Online has sought comment from Guo’s camp but has yet to receive a response as of posting time.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in June confirmed that Guo and Chinese passport holder Guo Hua Ping have the same fingerprints .

TIMELINE: The plots and twists of the 'Alice Guo' probe

In early July, the OSG filed a petition seeking to cancel Guo’s birth certificate. Guevarra earlier said if cancelled , Guo would lose her most important defense evidence about her identity.

He also said the petition to cancel Guo's birth certificate and the quo warranto petition would complement each other.

Guo, for her part, has denied the allegations against her.

It was Senator Sherwin Gatchalian who first raised suspicions that Alice Guo and Guo Hua Ping were the same person, citing documents from the Board of Investments (BOI) and the Bureau of Immigration.

Gatchalian earlier presented records from the BOI of the Guo family's application for a Special Investors Resident Visa (SIRV).

The documents showed one Guo Hua Ping entering the Philippines on January 12, 2003.

"Alice Guo might be Guo Hua Ping who entered the Philippines on January 12, 2003, when she was 13 years old. Her real birth date is on Aug 31, 1990," Gatchalian said.

The documents were uncovered after Guo failed to provide details of her childhood and background to the Senate and after senators scrutinized her birth certificate, which was registered late.

Apart from her identity, Guo is also being scrutinized in relation to the raided Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) hub in her locality in March.

After Guo failed to repeatedly attend the inquiry, the Senate committee issued an arrest order against her and others.

Guo, along with 13 others, is also facing a human trafficking complaint before the Department of Justice in connection to the raided hub, where over 800 Filipinos and foreigners were rescued. — KBK, GMA Integrated News

IMAGES

Quo Warranto? Trial By Jury
QUO WARRANTO
Case briefs on Writs
Writ of quo warranto
(PDF) Quo Warranto: The Structure and Strength of a Common Law
RULE 66

VIDEO

Sen. Hontiveros at Sen. Gatchalian, pinamamadali ang SolGen na magsampa ng quo warranto case vs. Guo
Quo Warranto ।#ukpcs #uppcs #rpsc #upsc #bpsc
YARl KA! HULl SA CAMERA! + PART 2: ALICE GUO lSSUE
FlNGERPRlNTS PAREHO NGA ! WALA KANG TAKAS MAYOR !!!
Quo warranto / Writ of Quo warranto #shorts #trading #viral #polity #economic
CITIZENSHIP CRISIS AND QUO WARRANTO CASE OF MAYOR ALICE GUO a.k.a. GUO HUA PING

COMMENTS

Writ of Quo-Warranto: Meaning and its explanation with case laws
Case Laws for Writ of Quo Warranto: In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 491 case, the Court opined that the writ of quo warranto calls upon the holder of a public office to show to the court under what authority he is holding the office in question. If he is not entitled to the office, the court may restrain him from acting ...
All you need to know about the writ of Quo Warranto
The Court may either take suo motu cognisance of the case, or entertain a PIL (public interest litigation) concerned with the case. When can the writ of Quo Warranto be refused. The Court has the discretion to refuse to grant quo warranto in cases where: The Court's interference would not change the end result; The case is vexatious;
PDF The Writ of Quo Warranto in Minnesota S Legal Istory a Study of Its
Quo warranto is an extraordinary writ that challenges an officeholder's or. institution's official status.1 The use of quo warranto has varied over time and. has been used to consolidate royal power2 and dissolve corporate monopolies.3. These uses are only examples of the spectrum of this extraordinary writ.
Allowing the Tree to be Cut Down: Quo Warranto Writs in Florida
Florida constitution explicitly places the power to issue quo warranto writs to "state officers and state agencies" with the state supreme court. 24. This power, however, is discretionary. 25. Accordingly, quo warranto writs provide an effective recourse to block state actions that are overbroad but have yet to cause any quantifiable harm.
Quo Warranto and Public Accountability: A case study of Rajesh Awasthi
This case study delves into the nexus between Quo Warranto and public accountability, analyzing the repercussions of the court's ruling on administrative law and governance in India. This paper aims to explore how the judiciary's interpretation of Quo Warranto impacts the framework of public accountability within the Indian legal system, with ...
Writ of Quo Warranto: History, Scope, Evolution, and Landmark
The writ of quo warranto - literally translating to "by what warrant (or authority)?"—is a writ that dates back to mediaeval England. While largely obsolete in that form, it retains its significance in modern-day India, even if it is issued lesser than other writs. This article discusses the writ of quo warranto by tracing its history ...
Quo warranto
In the English-American common law, quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ issued by a court which orders someone to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold. The writ of quo warranto still exists in the United States, although it is uncommon, but it has been abolished in England and Wales.
quo warranto
Quo warranto is Latin for "by what warrant" (or authority). A writ of quo warranto is a common law remedy which is used to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office. A state may also use a quo warranto action to revoke a corporation's charter.. When bringing a petition for writ of quo warranto, individual members of the public have standing as citizens and taxpayers.
(PDF) Quo Warranto: The Structure and Strength of a Common Law
Quo warranto, as applied to corporate franchises, threatened to strip a company of its charter or certificate, and to place its assets with a receiver, winding up its business. In attempting to combat corporate entities taking part in trusts or other combinations, state quo warranto actions would prove immensely potent, at least initially.
Republic v. Sereno: The Politicization of Quo Warranto Petitions
On May 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, in one fell swoop, ousted its own Chief Justice. The decision in Republic v. Sereno[2] took the Office of Solicitor General's (OSG) position that even impeachable officials can be removed from office via a quo warranto petition. The decision discarded the traditional concept of removing ...
Understanding the Writ of Quo Warranto: A Detailed Exploration
The writ of quo warranto is a legal remedy used to challenge the authority or legitimacy of an individual or entity to hold a particular office or exercise a specific privilege. This ancient legal concept, rooted in English common law, serves as a mechanism for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that power is exercised lawfully and within ...
Quo Warranto
What Is Quo Warranto? Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies. Quo warranto is used to test a person's legal right to hold an office, not to evaluate the person's performance in the office. For example, a quo warranto action may be brought to determine ...
Analysis of Types of Writs under Constitution of India: Landmark Cases
A writ of Qua-Warranto can be claimed by a person if he satisfy the court that— 1. the office in question is public office 2. it is held by a person without legal authority the writ of Qua Warranto is not issued in respect of an office of a private character. thus in Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v/s Dr. D. Ram [7] in this case it was held that ...
(Pdf) the Writ of Quo Warranto in Minnesota'S Legal and Political
the writ of quo warranto in minnesota's legal and political history: a study of its origins, development and use to achieve personal, economic, political and legal ends
Quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno
The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno (G. R. No. 237428), which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file certain required ...
DIGEST: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)
REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA v. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 [J. Tijam, En Banc] DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: Quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed of when the subject act or omission was committed prior to…
Quo Warranto and Borough Corporations in Early Stuart England: Royal
A close look at the case of Maidstone, Kent, for which we have extensive evidence from King's Bench and local sources, shows how local actors could affect both the initiation and the conclusion of quo warranto. The case first appeared in King's Bench in Hillary term, 1 Charles, when the court issued a venire facias to the mayor, jurats and ...
QUO WARRANTO :- Legal Maxim
Quo-warranto is the name of the writ by which an action is commenced for recovering of an office of franchise from the person or authority possessing the same without valid title to the office and/or usurping the same. It is the remedy which is applied by the Court to inquire the validity in legal terms, of the contention which a party states ...
PDF Quo warranto—Writ of quo warranto may not issue when the party seeking
{¶ 2} The Ohio Attorney General commenced this case by filing a complaint for a writ of quo warranto in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking 1. The Reash/Brey faction and the opposing group, the Khan/Ball faction, are named for the attorneys representing each group. 2. The previous Ohio Attorney General, Michael DeWine, instituted this ...
What is a Writ of Quo Warranto?
Quo Warranto Example. In the case of the University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1965), the Supreme Court of India applied the Writ of Quo Warranto. Here, the question was whether a person appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of a university had the required qualifications.
Writ of Quo Warranto: History, Scope, Evolution, and Landmark Judgements
The writ of quo warranto can also be wielded against corporations—not just government officials—who violate franchise. As affirmed by the Delhi High Court, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume II, describes it as "a legal proceeding that is brought by the state, sovereign, or public officer, has a purpose similar to that of the ancient writ of quo warranto, is usually ...
Quo Warranto (Rule 66)
Quo warranto proceedings determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if the latter's claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. In the instance in which the petition for quo warranto is filed by an individual in his own ...
Writ Of Quo Warranto & Relaxed Rules Of Locus Standi
Armed Forces Medical Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731, observed that strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo warranto proceedings. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671, the Supreme Court had observed thus: This Court has laid down in a number of ...
Alice Guo faces disqualification case filed by SolGen
According to Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto petition is a legal action against a person who "usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or ...
OSG asks Manila court to remove Alice Guo as Bamban mayor
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on Monday filed a quo warranto petition against suspended Bamban, Tarlac mayor Alice Guo, which may result in her removal from public office. In the 45-page petition, the OSG asked the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 34 to declare Guo's proclamation as Bamban mayor null and void and for her ...
OSG eyes filing quo warranto case vs Alice Guo before end-July
A quo warranto is a special civil action used to determine if an individual has the right to hold public office. READ: Alice Guo says sorry to Escudero: No intention to dictate on Senate In a ...

The Legal Quotient

Writ of Quo-Warranto

Law and You > A dministrative Law > Writ of Quo-Warranto

Share this:

All you need to know about the writ of Quo Warranto

Introduction

What is Quo Warranto

History and later developments of the writ of Quo Warranto

Who can file the writ of Quo Warranto

Grounds of issuing the writ of Quo Warranto

Conditions for issuing the writ of Quo Warranto

Procedure to follow if Quo Warranto has to be issued

When can the writ of Quo Warranto be refused

Case laws on the writ of Quo Warranto

G.D Karkare v. T.L Shevde, (1952)

University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao, (1963)

Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Dr. Rajeshwar Dayal and Ors, (2003)

S. Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph, (2010)

Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal, (2013)

Critical analysis of the writ of Quo Warranto

The concept of Quo Warranto in other countries

California, USA

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

How to become a SEBI Law Officer

Register now

Quo Warranto and Public Accountability: A case study of Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013)

Law Article in India

Human Rights In The Digital...

The Educational Renaissance...

Case Analysis Of The SC Sub...

Diplomacy, Not Law, Governs...

Property Disputes: The Doct...

The Booming Brothel: Online...

Law Articles

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

Facade of Social Media

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

quo warranto

Quo Warranto: The Structure and Strength of a Common Law Antitrust Remedy

UST Law Review

Republic v. Sereno and its Aftermath: The Politicization of Quo Warranto Petitions

Related Posts

Maynilad v. Secretary of DENR: Integration of the Public Trust Doctrine for the Protection of the Environment

LEXIS AND COMPANY

Origins of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Common Law Tradition

Principles of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Public Interest

Applications of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Corporate Governance

Significance of the Writ of Quo Warranto

Legal Remedies

Post a Comment

Supreme Court Judgments

High Court Judgments

Campus Buzz

Legal Education

Circulars & Notices

Recent News

You May Also Like :

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

LatestLaws Partner Event : 3rd Arbitrate In India Conclave 2024

Sign in through your institution

Quo Warranto and Borough Corporations in Early Stuart England: Royal Prerogative and Local Privileges in the Central Courts

Personal account

Institutional access

IP based access

Society Members

Sign in through society site

Sign in using a personal account

Viewing your signed in accounts

Signed in but can't access content