Tag: fundamental rights

Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties for Indian Citizens

India is well-known for its cultural diversity. This great nation’s identity is formed by many religions, cultures, and languages. Along with this diversity, India has been the site of several significant political movements. The struggle for independence from British rule was one of these movements. Following our country’s independence in 1947, our leaders worked tirelessly to draught a constitution that would protect the rights of all citizens. The Indian Constitution is a document that discusses the fundamental rights and duties of Indian citizens. In this article, we will look at these fundamental rights in greater detail!

Picture Courtesy – https://www.nicholls.edu/

What are the fundamental rights?

The fundamental rights are the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Indian citizens by the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution enshrines these rights ( Articles 12-35). Fundamental rights are not absolute, but are subject to reasonable limitations. Every Indian citizen is guaranteed seven fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
Article 12-35 of the Indian constitution establishes seven fundamental rights. It includes the right to equality (Article 14-18), the right to freedom (Article 19-22), the right against exploitation (Article 23-24), the right to religious freedom (Article 25-28), cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30), the right to property (Article 31), and the right to constitutional remedies (Article 32). (Article 32). Courts have the authority to enforce fundamental rights, subject to reasonable limitations.
  • Right to Equality (Article 14-18): The right to equality includes the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of caste, race, place of birth, sex, religion, and equal opportunity for employment.
  • Right to Freedom (Article 19-22): These rights include the freedom to speak freely and express yourself, the right to form associations, unions, or cooperatives, the right to move, reside, and work.
  • Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24): This includes protection from human trafficking and forced labor.
  • Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28): This right includes the freedom to choose, practice, and promote the religion of your choice.
  • Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30): These rights include the right to protect minorities’ interests as well as the right to preserve their language, script, or culture.
  • Right to Property (Article 31): The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 abolished this right and replaced it with a legal right under Article 300A.
  • Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): This is the most important right because it grants the authority to petition the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
  • Fundamental rights are not absolute, but are subject to reasonable limitations, as stated in the constitution. Except in declared emergencies, these rights cannot be waived.

What are the fundamental duties under the Indian constitution?

The fundamental duties of citizens under the Indian Constitution are mentioned in Part IVA of the constitution. They were added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The amendment was done to instill a sense of patriotism and national pride in the citizens. There are ten fundamental duties mentioned in the constitution.
These fundamental duties are not enforceable by law but the constitution aims to inculcate a sense of duty in every citizen. Some of the fundamental duties include:
 
– protect our composite culture’s rich heritage; 
– protect our country and provide national service whenever the government requests it.
– promote harmony and a sense of common brotherhood among the people of India, regardless of regional, linguistic, or religious differences.
– value and preserve our country’s rich biodiversity; 
– protect mother earth as well as rivers, wildlife, forests, and lakes.
– protect public property and avoid violence;
Apart from the fundamental duties mentioned above, Indian citizens are also required to perform additional duties.

Differences between fundamental rights and fundamental duties:

The major difference between fundamental rights and fundamental duties is that fundamental duties are binding on all citizens, whereas fundamental rights are not.
–The Fundamental Rights, as defined in Part III of the Constitution, are all citizens’ basic civil and political rights. 
– The Fundamental Duties, as defined in Part IVA of the Constitution, are non-mandatory obligations that are regarded as moral obligations. 
– The courts can enforce the Fundamental Rights, but not the Fundamental Duties. 
– The Fundamental Duties were added to the Constitution recently, whereas the Fundamental Rights have been present since its inception.

Conclusion:

The Fundamental Rights are a set of rights to which all Indian citizens are entitled. These rights are enshrined in the Indian Constitution and protect the individual from abuse by both the government and private individuals and organizations. I tried to outline the seven fundamental rights that all Indians have, define fundamental duties, and differentiate between fundamental rights and fundamental duties in this blog post.

Difference Between Fundamental Rights And Directive Principles Of State Policy

Introduction

With 448 Articles, 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules, the Indian Constitution is the world’s longest. It is the ultimate law of the land and controls a variety of sectors, some of which are essential and necessary for the nation’s functioning. The various portions of the Constitution have a specific title under which various legislation pertaining to that subject are listed. Parts III and IV, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, are the most visible and discussed sections of the Indian Constitution. Whereas the Fundamental Rights are the rights that all citizens have, the Directive Principles are the mandates that the State must bear in mind when making laws and regulations. Each has a specific function to play, and each is fully described.

However, there may be times when both of these elements are at odds with one another. A circumstance may call for one to be picked over the other, i.e. one to take precedence over the other. In such a scenario, not only is it difficult to select between the two, but the worth of the one not chosen is reduced. It is sometimes stated that Basic Rights, since they are essential, will take precedence over Directive Principles; nevertheless, it is also contended that Directive Principles are fundamental in the sense that they provide the foundation for the operation of the State. To determine their real nature and activities, it is necessary to thoroughly analyse both components and comprehend the points of distinction between the two.

The Fundamental Rights

Fundamental Rights - Nature, Scope and importance

Individuals’ rights are extremely essential. Rights aid in the formation of personality by providing a person with plausible claims that may be enforced against the State if any of his basic convictions are infringed. The Fundamental Rights envisioned in Part III of the Indian Constitution are the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of the nation, regardless of caste, creed, gender, religion, place of birth, and so on. Articles 12 to 35 of the constitution mention six essential rights:

  1. The Right to Equality, which promotes citizen equality and forbids discrimination on certain grounds.
  2. The Right to Freedom, which enumerates numerous liberties like as freedom of expression, freedom of profession, and so on.
  3. The Right to Religious Freedom, because India is a melting pot of religious groupings, it is critical to protect the interests of religious minorities.
  4. The prohibition against forced labour, child labour, and other kinds of human exploitation is known as the Right Against Exploitation.
  5. Cultural and Educational Rights, because India is a diverse nation with so many cultures and beliefs, so it is essential to preserve the culture of every group.
  6. The Rights to Constitutional Remedies, under which a person can approach the courts of the country if he/she feels that his/her Fundamental Rights have been violated.

These rights further branch out and give us various other fundamental rights, such as the Right to Privacy, the Right to Education, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty etc.

Although the rights are fundamental in nature, they can be taken away in certain situations, for example, if there is a situation of emergency under Articles 358 and 359 of the Constitution. Even then, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty cannot be taken away by the State.

The Directive Principles of State Policy

Articles 36 through 51 of the Constitution include the Directive Principles of State Policy. They were derived from the Irish Constitution, which was derived from the Spanish Constitution. The Directive Principles are rules that the government must follow while developing legislation for the country. They fulfil the notion of a Welfare State, which can only be realised if these Principles are followed in the manner that they are stated. Article 37 of Part IV indicates that, while these principles are not enforceable in any court of law, they are important to the country’s governance and the government has a duty to adopt them when drafting legislation.

Directive Principles of State Policy - (Articles 36-51) - DPSP

In contrast to Fundamental Rights, the Directive Principles are not classified in the Indian Constitution. However, for a better understanding, they are typically divided into three categories: socialist principles, Gandhian principles, and liberal-intellectual ideas.

  1. Articles 38 to 39A, Articles 41 to 43A, and Article 47 are composed of socialistic principles, and they lay down the framework for the development of a democratic socialist state.
  2. Articles 40, 43, 43B, and 46 to 48 include Gandhian principles, which promote the ideology of Mahatma Gandhi during the movement for Independence.
  3. Articles 44, 45, and 48 to 51 are inclined towards the ideas of liberalism and intellectualism. The Uniform Civil Code is also covered under these Articles.

The Directive Principles do advocate for the protection of certain rights, such as the right to equal compensation for equal labour, as well as equality and justice, but they are more rules than rights. They may be classified as the responsibilities of those in charge of governing the country.

Points of Difference Between Fundamental Rights And Directive Principles Of State Policy

Apart from the fact that the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy represent distinct things and are found in various portions and articles of the Constitution, they are fundamentally different in terms of their aims and execution. The following are the relationships between fundamental rights and state policy directive principles:

  1. The Fundamental Rights are open to all Indian people, they represent an individualised attitude. They are the fundamental rights of every individual citizen in the country, and if violated, they can be enforced against another individual or the State. The Directive Principles have a more social stance. They exist for the benefit of the country’s whole population rather than for the benefit of individuals. They have a group mentality.
  2. The scope of Fundamental Rights is essentially limited, because granting limitless rights to the citizens may result in anarchy. They are to be read strictly. But the scope of Directive Principles is limitless. They can be read and interpreted extensively and can give birth to more principles.
  3. Fundamental Rights are negative in nature, which means that they are prohibitions on the State. The State is required from doing certain things that would lead to the violation of an individual’s Fundamental Rights. They are legally enforceable in a court of law of the country. This also implies that Fundamental Rights are of such a nature that they can be violated. Directive Principles, on the other hand, do not possess the characteristic of being violated. They exist as a basis for the laws that are formulated for the country and this implies that they cannot be legally enforced in a court of law of the country. This renders the Directive Principles positive in nature, i.e. the State is obliged to do certain things for the welfare of the country.
  4. Because India is a democratic country, democratic features may be seen in its laws. Both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles promote the concept of democracy, although they do it in distinct ways. Fundamental Rights spread political democracy, whereas Directive Principles spread social and economic democracy. It is simply due to the fact that the goals of both parties are dissimilar. Furthermore, Fundamental Rights represent individual wellbeing, whereas Directive Principles represent societal and economic benefit.
  5. Adequate legislation is necessary for the execution of Directive Principles. The Directive Principles can only be realised via law. They cannot be implemented automatically and in the language in which they are enshrined in the Constitution. Fundamental Rights, on the other hand, are already enforceable. They do not require any legislation to be enacted. However, this does not mean that there are no consequences for violations of Fundamental Rights. Directive Principles are subject to legal and political sanctions, but Fundamental Rights are also subject to legal consequences.
  6. If a legislation violates the Fundamental Rights, a court might declare that law illegal and void. However, the courts lack the authority to declare any statute that violates a Directive Principle illegal or void. A legislation, on the other hand, can be supported by a court if it gives effect to a Directive Principle.
  7. The Fundamental Rights were given a place of honour by the drafters of the Constitution. They are the fundamental rights granted to all citizens. The Directive Principles are granted permanent status in the Constitution since they serve as the foundation for the country’s legislative activities.
  8. Violation of the Fundamental Rights results in punishment, as per the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These rights can be enforced against the State or against any individual(s). There is no punishment for the violation of Directive Principles.
  9. Fundamental Rights can be suspended during a period of emergency, except the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which cannot be suspended even in an emergency. Directive Principles can never be suspended or restricted, under any circumstance.
  10. The Constitution of India was formulated at a time when a lot of countries had their own constitutions. Thus, many parts of our Constitution have been borrowed from other constitutions. While the Directive Principles have been borrowed from the Irish Constitution, the Fundamental Rights have been borrowed from the Constitution of the United States of America.

Conclusion

The differences between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy suggest that the aims and objectives of both are different but somewhat similar. Each part of the Constitution compliments another, and so do they. It is necessary to understand the importance of each and apply/use them accordingly. Fundamental Rights are rights in the sense that they are available to the people, and Directive Principles act as duties upon the State, which the State is required to fulfil, even though the Directive Principles incorporate some elements of social and economic rights. Together, they aim at promoting the principles of democracy and welfarism, which can be achieved only when both the parts go hand in hand, without any conflict.

Minerva Mills Case: Analyzing the battle between Fundamental Rights & Directive Policies

According to the Constitution of India, Parliament and the state legislatures have power to make laws within their respective jurisdiction. This power, though, is not absolute in nature. The judiciary is given by the Constitution powers to determine the constitutional validity of all laws which means that the Supreme Court(SC) has the power to declare any law invalid or “ultra vires” if it violates any provision of the Constitution. Our founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document instead of a rigid framework for governance. Hence, Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its Procedure) gave power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution. But the Parliament could not distort, damage or alter the basic features of the Constitution under the excuse of amending it with the intention that the original ideas which were envisioned by the constitution-makers are preserved. Thus, the doctrine through which certain features of the Constitution are beyond the limit of the powers of amendment by Parliament is called the “Basic Structure” doctrine. No part of the Constitution can be so amended by Article 368 that it “alters the basic structure” of the Constitution or any constitutional amendment that violates the ‘basic structure’ would be invalid.

The phrase “Basic Structure” was introduced in the landmark case of Golaknath v.State of Punjab[1] for the first time in 1967 where the SC held that the Parliament has no power to amend Part III(Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution as the rights given are “transcendental and immutable”. According to the SC decision, Article 368 only lays down amendment procedure of the constitution and does not give the Parliament absolute powers to amend any part of the Constitution, but it was only in 1973 that the concept raised in the case Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala[2] . The SC upheld the validity of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act by reviewing its decision in the Golaknath case. It was held that the Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, but the basic structure of the Constitution is to be preserved. Though the Apex Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be repealed even by a constitutional amendment but it still did not give any clear definition of basic structure. After the declaration of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in the case of Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, it was in the case of Minerva Mills vs Union on India[3]  which involved a further analysis of the basic structure in the context of the limitations to the amending powers of the Parliament and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles of the state policy.

Minerva Mills Ltd. is a limited company dealing in textiles in Karnataka. On August 1970, the Central Government, after extensive production fall in the company, under section 15 of the Industries (Development Regulation) Act,1951 appointed a committee. This was to make a full and complete enquiry of the activities of the company as they believed that there had been or was likely to be significant fall in the volume of production. The appointed Committee submitted its report in January, 1971 to the Central Government, on the basis of which the Government passed an order on October 19, 1971 under section 18A of the 1951 Act, permitting the National Textile Corporation Ltd., to take over the administration of the Mills on the ground that its activities are being managed in a manner highly harmful to public interest. This undertaking was then nationalized and the Central Government took over the company under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings Act of 1974.

In this case, the validity of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,1976 was challenged on the ground that the clauses inserted are destructive of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down the clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 368 on the same ground. The court ruled that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. The historical judgment of this case laid down that: The amendment made to Article 31C by the 42nd  Amendment is invalid as it damaged the essential features of the Constitution. Clauses (4) and (5) are invalid on the ground that they violate two basic features of the Constitution which is limited nature of the power to amend the constitution and judicial review. The courts cannot be deprived of the power of judicial review. The procedure given in Clause (2) is mandatory. If there is no compliance between the amendment passed and the procedure, then it would be invalid. The Judgment thus makes it clear that the Constitution is supreme not the Parliament. Parliament cannot have unrestricted amending power so as to damage or destroy the Constitution to which it owes its existence and from where it also derives its power. The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy should be complementary to each other and there should be no conflict between them. Certainly, Part IV is a part of the Constitution. Even though the Directives are not enforceable, Article 37 clearly mentions that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles. An unjustified importance on civil freedoms and rights in total disregard of the need to bring about social and economic justice, may lead to a mass disorder. Similarly any importance on the Directive Principles alone, in total disregard of the rights and freedoms, may lead to dictatorship. Hence, a harmonious balance should be maintained between Part III and Part IV and the real combination should come out only from harmonizing the spirit of economic democracy with the spirit of political democracy.

This case validated the ‘basic structure’ doctrine by highlighting the importance of the balance between fundamental rights and DPSP as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This case also broadened the concept of the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution which has safeguarded the survival of the fundamental features over which the constitution is based upon.

The court also reiterated the judgment in Kesavananda case holding that the power of Parliament to amend the constitution under Article 368 is of restrictive nature. The court relied on the explanation of Basic Structure that the circumstantial features can be changed but the basic features cannot be changed.

Basic structure of the Constitution is of key importance as it prevents the Parliament from having absolute power and becoming the principal of Law itself. It has now emerged in certainty that the struggle between Parliament and Judiciary is that the constitutional amendments and all the laws are subject to judicial review and laws that violates the basic structure are likely to be struck down. Substantially, Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute or unconditional and the Supreme Court is the final negotiator and interpreter of all constitutional amendments.

Finally, the Basic Structure of the constitution reiterates that nothing is above the Constitution, neither the Parliament nor the Judiciary.

[1] Golaknath v State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762(India)

[2] Kesavnanda Bharati v Union of India, (1973) 4 SCC 225(India)

[3] Minerva Mills v Union of India, (1980)AIR SC 1789

Introduction to Fundamental Rights

The fundamental rights are defined as the basis humar rights of all citizens. These rights, defined in part 3rd of the constitution. Applied irrespective of caste, creed, place of birth, religion etc. They are enforceable by the court, subject to specific restrictions.

What is the purpose of fundamental rights ?

1. Preserve individual liberty,

2. Equality of all members of society,

3. Dr Ambedkar said that the responsibility of the legislature is just not to provide fundamental rights but also and rather,  to safeguard them.

List of fundamental rights 

There are six fundamental rights of Indian constitution along with to constitutional article.

Right to equality (article 14-18)

Right to equality guarantees equal rights for everyone irrespective of their caste, creed, birth of place, religion or race. This right also includes the abolition of titles as well as untouchability.

Right to freedom (article 19-22)

Freedom is one fo the most important ideals enhanced and cherished by the democratic country. Without freedom the democracy is meaningless. The freedom right includes many rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association And freedom to practice any profession and religion.

Right against exploitation (article 23-24)

This right implies the prohibition of traffic in human beings, beggar and other forms of force labour. It also implies the prohibition of child labour. The constitution prohibits the employment of children under 14 years in hazardous conditions.

Right to freedom of religion (article 25-28)

There is equal importance given to all religions. There is freedom of conscience, profession, practice and propagation of religion. The state has no official religion. Every person has the right to choose his/her religion.

Cultural and educational rights (article 29-30)

Special protection provided in the constitution to preserve and develop the language, Culture and religion of minorities. Every culture has the right to conserve it’s language, culture and religious practices.

Right to constitutional remedies (article 32)

Article 32 provide a guaranteed remedy, in the form of a fundamental right itself, for enforcement of all the other fundamental rights, and the supreme court is designated as the protector of these rights by the constitution.the supreme court has the jurisdiction to enforce the fundamental rights even against the private bodies. And in case of violation, award compensation as well as to the affected individual.

Right to privacy

Right to privacy is the latest right of our country being recently approved by the supreme court of india. According to this right we are liable to keep our material private and without our permission no one can interfere in our private matter.

Right to property was removed from the Indian constitution in 1978. It is no longer counted as a fundamental right.  

‘Not all men’ vicious – Pseudo Feminism

If you pick up a dictionary, the definition you’ll find for the word ‘feminism’. In simple terms, there shouldn’t be any injustice met out to either sex. They should be treated equally. But, off late, a new type of feminism is developing which is rightly called as pseudo feminism. Pseudo feminists hold a strong resolve to correct all the injustices done to women, mostly by lashing out at men and demeaning them. What they forget is the basic essence of feminism movement: equality. Another form of pseudo feminism, according to me, is the feminism of convenience. The biggest example being: men paying for dates. If we’re as equal as women proclaim to be, why can’t a restaurant bill be split between the two? The reason is simple-men are too egoistic to let a woman pay, and for a few women it miraculously becomes a man’s job to pay for the date. Where, I ask these feminists, does the feminism vanish then?

Feminism is now a muddied term. Difficult to say what it means today. We often don’t realise it, but pseudo feminism is all around us, hiding behind feminism in clandestine. We’re the women shouting for equal rights everywhere, but don’t waste a single minute asking a guy sitting on a Ladies Reserved seat to vacate it. Why do we need reservations in general coaches? Since we’re able bodied, strong, grown-up women of strength, can’t we stand in a general coach? Men doing 9-5 jobs, burning their hours toiling hard to earn, are as tired as we are. It is just a very preposterous notion. Like it’s correctly said, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Although they are in the minority, it’s a crystal clear truth there are men who too are subjected to sexual crimes. The numbers of cases reported to the police are on the lower side, because most of the men don’t report such crime for the fear of being ridiculed at, not being believed and instead facing the charges themselves. Men are mostly kidnapped and abducted for illegal sexual intercourse, forced marriages, prostitution, etc. The number of such victims is really low but it’s a fact we cannot ignore. When we are talking of rising violence against women, we shouldn’t neglect the fact that somewhere out there are men also being subjected to same brutalities.

Board results are a few months away, but a boy has passed with flying colors by refusing to be part of a plan to rape a girl, hatched by the girl herself, who was pretending to be a boy. The boy passed but, many say, feminism failed. They have been saying that for years now. They are not too off the mark though. While it may not have failed, it sure has taken a huge hit.

Fake accounts, false allegations and fraudulent charges have harmed men and their reputations. They are also building a case against women’s right to stay in the fight for justice.
Part of the problem is the fact that the odds are heavily stacked against women. But another part of the problem is the way women used social media to fight this battle.

Each true story helps build credibility. Each false story is turned into a weapon against the fight for gender justice. The girl, who faked herself as a boy, is not part of the Bois Locker Room chats, but the story is now all about this one girl who faked her identity.

So what should women do?

I will answer with what they should not.

One, do not shoot and scoot. Don’t get into it if you cannot stay in it. Weigh in before you jump in. This is for the long haul. There is a lot of mudslinging that happens. You can’t escape the splashes.

Two, do not use fake accounts to bring down men. It’s easy to prove. The consequences are for everyone – the man, the movement and also you. Take care of You. Take care of the fight that is for us to stand equal to men with no biases in workplaces, no casual sexism, no acid attacks, no rapes and no honor killings.

If true feminism was followed, then we would treat all the victims equally. Victims would cease to be women or men, but just victims of abuse. But sadly, that is not the case. Pseudo feminism shouts out loudly that men can’t be raped, men can’t be tormented, and men claiming to have been put under such atrocities are lying cheats. It’s most likely that I would be branded ‘anti-feminist’ by pseudo feminists all around, but I don’t mind. I don’t mind because I know how to stand up for my fellow sisters when they actually need it.

When a woman is put on fire, when she is raped, is brutalized, is stripped naked on the streets, forced to quit her studies to marry a man three times her senior in age, when she is blamed if she is raped, or teased, when a woman is beaten repeatedly for refusing to pressurize her parents into paying dowry, when she is considered inferior to her male counterparts, that is when I need to give voice to my anger and lash out at the people responsible for it. If I am a true feminist, I will do the same if it were a man being stoned on the streets, being raped, being accused of a fake rape, being doubted over just because he is a man. As Gloria Steinem rightly said, a feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.

Not all men do it, but all women suffer through it.

This is serious. Take it seriously.

Distinction between the Writ of Prohibition and the Writ of Certiorari

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 ProhibitionWrit 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.