Writ of Quo Warranto: The Sensational Knite of the Throne

INTRODUCTION

Quo Warranto means “by what warrant or authority.” The writ of Quo Warranto is a judicial order. The Supreme Court or a High Court issues it against someone who occupies or usurps an independent public office, franchise, or liberty. The person must show by what right they claim the office. The title to the office, franchise, or liberty may be settled. Any unauthorized person shall be ousted.

Experts consider the writ of Quo Warranto a method of judicial control. The proceedings practically review the actions of the administrative authority that appointed the person. Additionally, it helps in tuning the administration. It removes inefficient, unqualified personnel, and impostors from public office. However, it is also true that this writ acts as protection for a citizen. It prevents authorities from depriving them of a public office to which they had a rightful claim earlier.

CONDITIONS FOR THE GROUND OF QUO WARRANTO

The office must be a public office

In the case of Anand Bihari versus Ram Sahai, the court viewed a public office as an office created by statute or constitution, and its duties involve public interest. This case held that the office of the legislative assembly speaker is a public office.

In the case of G.D. Karkere v. Tl shiv.AIR 1952N.AG 330, the office of advocate general is a public office.

In the case of Shiam Sunder was a State of Punjab AIR 1958 Punjab 128, the Court held that members of a muncipal board or office of a university official are public offices.

In the case of Amarindra, Chandra v. Narendra Kumar Basu AR1953C. AL114, it was held that the writ of Quo Warranto would not be issued against a managing committee of a private school.

In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. D. Ram Iyer AIR 1954 Pat 297, it was held that the writ of Quo Warranto into could not be issued against the member of the working committee of Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha because these are private offices and are not created by the law.

The Public office must be substantive in nature for Quo Warranto

The writ of Quo Warranto can be applied against an office. The office must be a substantive office with a permanent character. It should not be terminable at will. The word “substantive” alludes to an office of an independent title. Thus, Quo Warranto cannot be granted to an office. The office may be held at the pleasure of the state, even if it is permanent in nature. The official must be an independent official. This means such officials shall not merely discharge functions of a deputy or servant at the pleasure of another officer.

For the writ of Quo Warranto, it is necessary that the person must be in actual possession of the office. A mere declaration that someone has elected or appointed a person to a particular office does not suffice to grant the writ of Quo Warranto. The court cannot issue it against a person who has not taken actual possession of the office.

The office must be held in contravention of law

For the purpose of the writ of Quo Warranto, there must exist a clear violation of law. This violation must be in the appointment of a person to a public office. A mere irregularity is not sufficient for the issuance of the writ of Quo Warranto. In the case of State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad, AIR 1967 SC, the court observed that the authorities transferred and posted two district judges contrary to law. However, it did not lead to the issuance of the writ of Quo Warranto. The court considered such transfer a case of mere irregularity that did not make the officer’s occupation wrongful.

It should be noted that the writ of Quo Warranto can be issued. This can happen even when a person validly occupies an office but acquires a disqualification later on.

LOCUS STANDI OF THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

1. Writ of Quo Warranto and Its Applicability

The writ of Quo Warranto does not depend on the proposition that a person whose rights are adversely affected must petition for it. It is also maintainable at the instance of any person, whether or not that person is personally aggrieved or interested in the matter. However, the petitioner must not act as a mere front set up by someone else. For example, to challenge a municipal office, the person must at least be a resident of the area where the municipality exercises governance.

2. Grounds for Refusal of the Writ of Quo Warranto

a) Unreasonable Delay

The writ of Quo Warranto being a writ of extraordinary remedy, is also a disorderly remedy. The court can refuse the writ of Quo Warranto on the ground of unreasonable delay. So when a person has held office for a long time without challenge, the writ of Quo Warranto may be refused.

K Bhima Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

In the case of K Bhima Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981AP24, the court observed that matters involving fundamental right to a public office and violation of a legal procedure to be adopted in the matter of appointments to a public office the delay should not result into a deterrence of the court in granting the relief and rendering justice as the usurper’s continuance in office give course of action each day and every hour till he is arrested.

b) Availability of an Alternative Remedy

Usually acquaintance is no ground for refusing the remedy of the writ of governance in cases pertaining to public office appointments.

V.D. Deshpande v. State of Hyderabad

In the case of V.D. Deshpande v. State of Hyderabad, the court observed that a writ of Quo Warranto can be refused if there is an alternative remedy that is adequate to address the issue. In this case, the court refused the writ of Quo Warranto against members of the legislature who had become disqualified because they held offices of profit, as provided under Article 192. The Constitution offered an adequate remedy for the situation.

c) When the Appointment is Contrary to Law

The court can issue the writ only if the appointment violates statutory rules. Courts do not consider individual merits of candidates when deciding on the issuance of Quo Warranto.

State of Haryana v. Haryana Corporation Transport Limited

It shall also be noted that in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Corporation Transport Limited, the Supreme Court issued the writ of Quo Warranto against appointment of a presiding officer of a labour code on the ground that the officer did not possess the described qualifications stating that the remedy provided under Section 9(1) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot stop the high court from exercising its jurisdiction to issue the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

d) Futility of the Writ

The writ of Quo Warranto is refused in cases where issue of such a writ of Quo Warranto would be futile.

P.L. Lakhanpal v. Chief Justice of India

This was observed in the case of P.L. Lakhanpal v. Chief Justice of India, AIR 1975 DEL 66. The Delhi High Court refused to issue the writ of Quo Warranto against the former Chief Justice of India, Justice Ray. The court held that after the resignation of three senior judges, Justice Ray became the senior-most judge. Therefore, he could be reappointed despite Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India, which embodies the seniority rule. The court also stated that the motive of the appointing authority is not relevant for granting the writ of Quo Warranto.

3. Judicial Discretion in Issuing the Writ

With regards to the issuance of the writ of Quo Warranto, the court will first determine whether a case for its issuance is made out or not. The jurisdiction of the court in issuing the writ of Quo Warranto can be exercised only when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules. A court cannot consider the relative merit of the candidates or any other factors while issuing the writ of Quo Warranto.

CONCLUSION

To summarize, Articles 32 and 226 protect the basic rights guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution. These Articles prohibit both the legislative and executive branches from violating the people’s constitutionally protected rights. The independent judiciary has been entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and enforcing the right to constitutional remedies via writs. The writ of quo warranto serves as a scanner to determine the legality of holders of substantive public posts.

Public offices are critical to the day-to-day and overall seamless operation of the nation. Having unqualified persons in these critical positions is a big worry. Quo warranto prevents nepotism, corruption, and irregularities by allowing applications to remove unqualified individuals from these vital posts.

Despite its colonial origins, the writ of Quo Warranto remains vital and relevant in modern Indian constitutional law. It plays an important role in safeguarding the sanctity of public positions and elections in India. The writ of Quo Warranto has a very specific target, but its rules of locus standi are considerably relaxed compared to other writs.

As discussed above, the writ can only be issued against an office that is independent, public, and substantive in nature. Moreover, the writ of Quo Warranto gives the judiciary a powerful weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against the law. It also protects a citizen from being deprived of a public office to which he has a rightful claim.