Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

The names of various writs have not been

used in Article 102 but the true contents


of each of the major writs have been set
out in self-contained propositions

I n British India a Supreme Court was first established in 1774


under the Regulating Act of 1773.This court was first
empowered to issue prerogative writs. Later two Supreme
Court were established in Madras and Bombay. These two
courts were also given writ power.

In 1862 three Supreme Court were abolished and in their place


three high court were established. These three High Courts
were empowered to issue prerogative writs.

After the partition in 1947 India & Pakistan became two


independent Dominions. Indian Constitution was adopted in
1949 and these constitutions gave power the Supreme Court
and High Court to issue writs and specific names of all writs
were included in both Article of 32 (for the Supreme Court) &
226 (for the High Court).

Under the 1956 Constitution of Pakistan gave power the


Supreme Court and High Court to issue writs and specific
names of all writs were included in both Article of 22 (for the
Supreme Court) & 170 (for the High Court).

It was 1962 Constitution of Pakistan, where for the first time a


change was introduced in writ matters that, writ provision were
made instead where true contains of each of the major writs
had been set out in self-contained propositions.

The Constitution maker of our country also did not include the
specific names of various writs in Article 102 of the
Constitution rather true contains of each of the major writs had
been set out in self-contained propositions.

No specific reason but two reasons assumed that why the


specific names of all writs were not included.

First, in Britain the Administration of Justice Acts, 1933 and


1938 were passed whereby mandamus, prohibition, certiorari
and quo-warranto were abolished as writ. Of these mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari have turned into orders and quo-warranto
into injunction. Now in Britain there is only one writ and it is
Haveas corpus. This might be influenced the Constitution
maker of Bangladesh to not using the specific names of various
writs.

Secondly, some writs have limited scope in their application.


For instance, prohibition and certiorari these two writs are
basically judicial writs and applicable only in respect of judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies. If the specific names of prohibition
and certiorari are used, then the court will not be able to apply
them to control administrative actions. To avoid this
inconvenience the specific names of various writs have been
not include.

Now we will investigate Article 102 of our Constitution to see


how the true contents of each of major writs have been set out
in self-contained preposition

Sub Article 102(2) (a) ( ) states,


The High court Division
may, if satisfied that no other equally efficacious remedy is
provided by law. On the application of any person aggrieved,
make an order, directing a person performing any function in
connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local
authority to refrain form doing that which he is not permitted
by law to do. It’s a concept of prohibition.
And the same sub Article, to do that which he is required by
law to do. It’s a concept of mandamus.
Sub Article 102(2) (b) ( ) states,
On the application of
any person, make an order, directing that a person in custody
be brought before it so that it may satisfy itself that he is not
being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful
manner. It’s a concept of Haveas corpus.

Sub Article 102 (2) (a) ( ) states,


Declaring that any act
done or proceeding taken by a person performing functions on
connection with the affairs of the Republic or a local authority
has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no
legal affect. It’s a concept of certiorari.

Sub Article 102(2) (b) ( ) states,


Requiring a person
holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under
what authority he claims to hold that office. It’s a concept of
quo-warranto.