In principle, a declaration is a formal written order issued by a person, executive or judicial, who has the power to do so. In modern times, this body is generally judicial. Therefore, an application can be understood as a formal written order made by a court empowered to make such an order. Orders, arrest warrants, orders, subpoenas, etc. are essentially documents. An application is a request submitted to the competent court in order to issue a specific pleading. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts have been endowed with many powers that they exercise to deliver justice to the people. One of the most important instruments or powers available to the courts by the Constitution is the power to issue injunctions. There are five types of ordinances, namely habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto and prohibition, and all these ordinances are an effective means of enforcing the rights of the people and compelling the authorities to perform the duties that the law is required to fulfill. The Constitution of India provides for 5 types of documents that can be issued by the courts. Fundamental rights are set out in Part III of the Indian Constitution, including the right to equality, the right to life and liberty, etc.
The mere provision of fundamental rights is not enough. It is important that these fundamental rights are also protected and enforced. In order to protect fundamental rights, the Constitution of India provides for the right to appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, in accordance with Articles 32 and 226. At the same time, both articles give the highest courts in the land the right to make orders to enforce fundamental rights. Social and economic justice is the hallmark of the Indian Constitution. It guarantees fundamental rights from which there can normally be derogated from. To protect these rights, the Constitution provides for enforceable remedies by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court. An important dimension of these remedies is the award of compensation in the context of the discharge that may be granted to the person concerned. WHAT IS THE BREF? A statement is a formal written order issued by a person, executive or judicial, who has the authority to do so. In modern times, this body is generally judicial. Therefore, an application can be understood as a formal written order made by a court empowered to make such an order.
Orders, arrest warrants, orders, subpoenas, etc. are essentially documents. An application is a request submitted to the competent court in order to issue a specific pleading. Judicial review of administrative acts in the form of jurisdiction aims to ensure that decisions taken by public authorities are lawful, rational, regular, just, equitable and reasonable. The protection of fundamental rights and the guarantee of natural justice are the most important elements of the judiciary. The origin of writs can be derived from the English judicial system and was created with the development of English people`s courts to common law courts. The law of documents has its origins in the orders of the King`s Bench in England. Writs were issued in response to a petition presented to the King in Council and considered a Royal Order. Writs were a written order issued in the name of the king. However, with different segments, the documents took on different shapes and names. The instruments were issued by the Crown and initially only in the interest of the Crown, they later became available to ordinary citizens.
A prescribed fee was charged for this and the completion of these documents was called the purchase of a policy. ORIGIN OF DOCUMENTS IN INDIA The origin of the documents in India dates back to the Regulation Act of 1773, under which the Supreme Court was established in Calcutta. The Charter also created other high courts and also gave them the power to issue documents as successors to the Supreme Court. The written jurisdiction of these courts was limited to their original civil jurisdiction under section 45 of the Specific Remedial Act 1877. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India provide for the application of fundamental rights and judicial review of administrative acts in the form of documents. It is a constitutional remedy available to a person to bring his or her complaint or complaint against an administrative measure to the attention of the court. The protection of fundamental rights and the guarantee of natural justice are the most important elements of the judiciary. Written jurisdiction is exercised by the Supreme Court and only by the Supreme Court. This power is conferred on the Supreme Court by section 32 and on the Supreme Courts by section 226. •Article 32, paragraph 1, guarantees everyone the right to apply to the Supreme Court for respect for the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. •Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to make orders or orders in the form of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo-warranto for the enforcement of fundamental rights. • Section 226 empowers state supreme courts to make orders, orders, or orders as noted above for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for „any other purpose.“ that is, the High Courts can exercise enforcement power not only to enforce fundamental rights, but also to enforce a „non-fundamental right“.
In the absence of the provisions of these remedies, no one can assert the rights granted to him. So wherever there is a right, he must also remedy it. Therefore, it should satisfy the maxim „ubi jus ibi remedium“. One of the main creators of the Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar, gave Article 32 the main importance among all other articles of the Indian Constitution. He stressed: „It is the soul of the Constitution and the heart of it, `This is the soul of the Constitution and the heart of it.` TYPES OF ORDERS 1) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS It is the most valuable policy for personal freedom. Habeas corpus means, „Let us have the body.“ A person, if arrested, may appeal to the court on the issue of habeas corpus. This is an order issued by a court to the detention authority to bring the arrested person before he or she can verify whether the person has been detained lawfully or otherwise. If the court is satisfied that the person is unlawfully detained, it may order his release.
A habeas corpus brief, derived from the Latin word meaning „you can have the body,“ is a pleading (court order) that requires a person in custody to be brought before a judge or court. The principle of habeas corpus guarantees that a detainee can be released from unlawful detention, i.e. detention without reason or sufficient evidence. A remedy may be requested by the detainee or by another person assisting him. This right originates from the English legal system and is now available in many countries. Historically, it has been an important legal instrument that protects individual freedom against state arbitrariness. Who can apply? The general rule is that an application may be made by a person who has been unlawfully detained. But in some cases, a habeas corpus application may be made by any person on behalf of the detainee, that is: a friend or relative. A writ of habeas corpus, also known as a „grand pleading,“ is a subpoena with the force of a court order; It addresses the guardian (e.g. a prison officer) and requires that a prisoner be brought to trial and that the guardian provide proof of authority so that the court can determine whether the prison guard has the legal authority to detain the prisoner.
Habeas corpus has certain limitations. Technically, it is only a procedural remedy; It is a safeguard against detention prohibited by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the right to a fair trial. When will he lie? The writ of habeas corpus is justified when the power of detention conferred on the authority has been exercised in bad faith and for incidental or ulterior purposes. But if the detention is justified, the High Court will not issue the arrest warrant. CASES Jabalpur Additional District Judge v. Shiv Kant Shukla 1976 SC This case is also known as the habeas corpus case and was based on the grounds in dispute and the feasibility aspect of this application. This whole case revolves around the situation where a state of emergency was declared and the question was raised as to whether or not the habeas corpus warrant could be maintained in that situation. It was decided that, as in Liversidge v. Anderson, all rights were suspended during the state of emergency, the same was true in this case, where a state has the power to restrict the rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, particularly the right to life, in an emergency.
This decision was considered the darkest day in Indian history.
