Prerogative writ

A prerogative writ is a type of official order that compels a branch of government—such as an agency, official, or lower court—to act in a certain way. The term is historical, originating in English law, where these writs were available only to the Crown and represented the monarch’s discretionary and extraordinary power. Today, the term is often seen as outdated, and the six traditional writs are more commonly called extraordinary writs or extraordinary remedies.

The six writs traditionally classified as prerogative writs are: - **Certiorari**: A higher court orders a lower court to send the case record for review. - **Habeas corpus**: A court demands that a prisoner be brought before it to determine if their detention is lawful. - **Mandamus**: A higher court compels a lower court or government officer to correctly perform a mandatory duty. - **Prohibition**: A court directs a subordinate body to stop doing something prohibited by law. - **Procedendo**: An appellate court sends a case to a lower court with an order to proceed to judgment. - **Quo warranto**: A person must show by what authority they exercise a power.

Additionally, **scire facias**, another extraordinary writ, was once considered a prerogative writ.

**England and Wales** In England and Wales, prerogative writs allow the Crown, through its courts, to control inferior courts or public authorities. The writs are issued in the Crown’s name, with the Crown as nominal plaintiff, on behalf of the applicant. Except for habeas corpus, these writs are discretionary remedies. Since 1938, they have been known as prerogative orders. Quo warranto and procedendo are now obsolete, while certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition are now called “quashing orders,” “mandatory orders,” and “prohibiting orders” under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Habeas corpus still retains its original name.

**India** In India, fundamental rights would be meaningless without enforcement. The Constitution provides for enforcement: any executive or legislative act that abridges fundamental rights is void, and courts can declare it so (Article 13). The Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs to enforce these rights against any State authority. Article 12 defines “State” broadly, including government, parliament, state legislatures, local authorities, and even bodies like the Life Insurance Corporation. A proceeding under Article 32 is a constitutional remedy, and the right to bring such a case to the Supreme Court is itself a fundamental right.

**Pakistan** Under Article 199 of Pakistan’s Constitution, Provincial High Courts have wide judicial review powers, broader than the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 184(3). The orders a High Court can issue under Article 199 are also called writs: prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. Former West Pakistan High Court Chief Justice Rustam Kayani, a strong supporter of writ jurisdiction, said at his installation in 1958: “Mandamus and Certiorari are flowers of paradise and the whole length and breadth of Pakistan is not wide enough to contain their perfume.”

**United States** In the U.S. federal court system, the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) authorizes writ issuance. The statute’s language was deliberately vague to let courts decide what writs are necessary “in aid of their jurisdiction.” Use of writs at the trial level has been greatly reduced by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state equivalents, which specify a “one form of action.” The U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari, as do most state supreme courts for review. Mandamus has largely been replaced by injunctions in U.S. district courts and many state trial courts; it is now generally available only to federal courts of appeals, which issue it to lower courts and administrative panels, though some states still allow trial courts to issue mandamus directly to officials. Prohibition is also mostly limited to appellate courts, which use it to stop lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction.