The Writ of Quo Warranto is issued by the courts against a private person when he assumes an office on which he has no right. Quo Warranto literally means ‘by what authority’ and it is an effective measure to prevent people from taking over public offices.
Illustration: A who is a private citizen and has no qualifications for the post of sub-inspector assumes such office. Here a Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued against A to call into question his authority on which he has taken the control of the office of sub-inspector. The power to issue this Writ is discretionary on the courts and therefore nobody can demand that the court is bound to issue this writ.

Thus, the Court cannot give this Write in situations when the office is of a private nature. The court stated that the Writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued against a person who is not in the possession of a public office in the case of Niranjan Kumar Goenka v. The University of Bihar, Muzzfarpur AIR 1973 Pat 85. The Supreme Court has the authority to grant Writs under Article 32, and High Courts have that authority under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. These Writs are orders issued by the Courts to the public authority that is responsible for carrying out the act. The Mandamus has the broadest reach of these Writs.

Whereas other Writs are only granted under specific conditions, such as when someone is wrongfully held (Habeas Corpus) or when a court exceeds its power (Certiorari), Mandamus can be issued in situations where there is an authority in the course of duty. As a result, all of these Writs have been crucial in protecting citizens’ rights and expanding the reach of courts’ judicial review authority. Five different sorts of writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto, are provided under Articles 32 and 226 respectively. These are known as prerogative writs in English Law because they had originated in the King’s prerogative power of superintendence over the due observance of law by his officers and tribunals. The prerogative writs are extraordinary remedies intended to be applied in exceptional cases in which ordinary legal remedies are not adequate.

Conditions for issuing the writ of Quo Warranto

The writ of quo warranto can be issued under the following cases:

1. When a public office (created by law or the Constitution) is occupied by a private person, who does not actually have the authority to do so.

2. The public office must be substantive in character. The duties connected to the office must also be public in nature.

3. The usurper, whose authority is being challenged, must be holding his position at the time the challenge is made.

4. Even if a person was qualified at one point of time, the writ of quo warranto can be issued against him if he loses his qualifications

Conditions for issuing the writ of Quo Warranto

1. Public office

The writ of quo warranto applies in the case of an office which is public and not private in nature, i.e established by law or the Constitution. The public office must be substantive in nature, which excludes mere employment or function of a servant at the pleasure of another.

The writ can be successfully applied in a case where

1. The usurper does not have the requisite qualifications to hold the public office.

2. The usurper exercises certain rights or privileges with respect to the public office he wrongfully occupies

2. Election

The Court needs to have strong and concrete justification if it wants to interfere with cases associated with election. The Court can only interfere by issuing the writ of quo warranto .

1. The election does not have the sanction of the law;

2. There was a problem where people’s right to express their opinions was being curtailed;

3. The electoral roll was unlawfully made and used.

In cases where the inconsistency in the election does not affect the end result, or the problem is not severe enough,the Court usually does not interfere. The Court also does not take action when the applicant’s intentions are shady, with respect to the problems concerned with election

Elements of Quo Warranto

1. For issuing the writ of quo warranto, the following ingredients are necessary:

Wrongful occupation;

Nature of the office being public, not private;

Substantive character;

Contrary to statutory provisions or the law.

2. For quo warranto, with respect to Article 226(1), it is not necessary that there must be a breach of fundamental rights or a non-performance of duty. The main issue is – whether the usurper has the authority to hold the office, and if not, then the order passed is an order to oust the usurper from his post.

3. Even though the locus standi for quo warranto is relaxed compared to writs such as certiorari and mandamus, the applicant must not be completely unrelated to the appointment and office in question. Even if the connection is remote, the ‘link’ itself must exist.

4. In cases of election, where the applicant is not adversely affected or the end result would not change despite the interference of the Court, the Court usually takes a stance of non- interference.

5. The applicant must not have any malafide or ulterior motives for applying for quo warranto. The purpose of the applicant should be inclined towards acting for the benefit of public interest, and not for personal gain.

When can the writ of Quo Warranto be refused

The Court has the discretion to refuse to grantquo warranto in cases where:

1. The Court’s interference would not change the end result;

2. The case is vexatious;

3. The defendant no longer wrongfully occupies public office.

Case laws:

In Kumar Padma Padam Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1213) case, Mr K.N. Srivastava was appointed as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court by the President of India by a warrant of appointment under his seal. A petition was filed for issuing a writ of quo-warranto contending that Mr K.N. Srivastava was not qualified for the office. It was held by the Supreme Court that since Mr K.N. Srivastava was not qualified, quo warranto could be issued and accordingly the appointment of Mr K.N. Srivastava was quashed.

In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. Dr D Rama (AIR 1954 Pat. 297) case, the petitioner filed an application for issuing the writ of Quo Warranto against the Working Committee of Bihar Raj Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha, which was a private body. The High Court of Patna refused to issue the writ of Quo Warranto because it was not a public office.

In the case Purushottam Lal vs State of Rajasthan quo warranto was filed against the CM of Rajasthan stating that CM was not elected validly to the house. The court rejects the petition stating that if the CM holds office without authority, then it is breach of constitutional provision. The office of Chief Minister is created by constitution, so member of assembly is not a purpose of office. Raising the questions on the Election of Chief Minister in this writ is not a proper form it must be raised through an election petition.