The writ of Prohibition is issued to prevent the decision or administration action in the process, so that it cannot proceed further, while the Writ of Certiorari is issued to quash the decision already given.
Both the Writs are similar in many aspects. Both are issued by the superior court to the inferior court or Tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions on similar grounds.
However, the main difference between the writs are as follows:
| Writ of Prohibition | Writ of Certiorari |
| When an inferior court takes up for hearing a matter over which it has no jurisdiction, the person against whom the proceedings are taken can move the supreme court for a Writ of Prohibition and on that an order will be issued forbidding the inferior court from continuing the proceedings. | When the inferior court hears the cause or matter and gives a decision on a case over which it has no jurisdiction over, the party aggrieved shall have to move to the Supreme court for a Writ of Certiorari on which an order will be made quashing the decision of the inferior court., |
| It is issued before the proceedings are completed. | 2. It is issued after decision is given by an inferior court or Tribunal or any body exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions, exceeding its jurisdiction. |
| The object of the Writ of Prohibition is prevention rather than cure. | 3. The Writ of Certiorari is rather used as a cure by quashing a decision already given by the inferior court. |
| Prohibition lies only against judicial or quasi- judicial bodies. | 4. while Certiorari lies against a public authority which acts purely in an executive or administrative capacity or to a legislative body along with judicial and quasi- judicial bodies. |
Case law –
1.Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque
In the above case supreme court held that in cases where there is a requirement for prayer of certiorari as well as prohibition and the in the application not prayer of certiorari has been made then it would be open to the court to issue the writ and stop further proceedings which are affecting the decision. But in this case the proceedings have ended then seeking for prohibition will be too late and writ of certiorari must be a proper remedy for quashing. Clearing on the point it was also held that writ of prohibition will lie when the proceeding is pending to a large extent and writ of certiorari will be issued when then case has been terminated in a final decision.
2. Bengal Immunity Co. v State of Bihar
It was observed by the Supreme Court that the existence of an alternative remedy, that is adequate and equally effective remedy may be a matter that can be taken into consideration by the High Court in granting the writ. It is a writ of right not a discretionary writ and nature of writ of prohibition is much of corrective one rather than preventive. Presence of an alternate remedy does not impose an absolute bar on issuing writ of prohibition. But presence of an alternate remedy will be more relevant in context of certiorari.
CONCLUSION:
The procedure ordinarily followed by the Supreme court or High Court while exercising the certiorari jurisdiction is to command the inferior court or tribunal to certify its record or proceedings to the High Court for its inspection so as to enable the High Court to determine whether on the face of the record the inferior court has committed any of the preceding errors occasioning failure of justice. After adjudging the case in reference to the objection raised the court may pass an appropriate order which may include quashing of proceedings at subordinate court or tribunal, as the case may be.
Often a writ of certiorari is sought along with a writ of prohibition, so as to ensure that the invalid act is not only reviewed by a superior court, but its operation is restrained as well.
Eduindex 
You must be logged in to post a comment.