Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to quash the order or decision of an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority that has been made without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Under Indian law, the writ of certiorari is issued by High Courts under Article 226 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Legal definition
The Constitution of India does not provide a textual definition of certiorari. However, Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue writs "in the nature of certiorari":
Article 226(1): Every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them.
Additionally, Article 227 confers on every High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction, which has been interpreted as a separate but overlapping power to correct jurisdictional errors — distinct from the writ of certiorari under Article 226.
The term "certiorari" derives from the Latin phrase meaning "to be made more certain" or "to be informed." Historically, it was a prerogative writ of the English Crown used to call up the records of an inferior court for review. In the Indian constitutional framework, certiorari functions as the primary judicial mechanism for correcting errors of jurisdiction and procedural illegality by subordinate judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
How courts have interpreted this term
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675]
The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between certiorari under Article 226 and the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The Court held that under Article 226, certiorari can be issued to quash the decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority on the grounds of (i) want of jurisdiction, (ii) excess of jurisdiction, (iii) error of law apparent on the face of the record, or (iv) violation of natural justice. Under Article 227, the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction, which is broader in scope as it extends even to administrative orders but narrower in relief as it can only correct jurisdictional errors, not errors of fact.
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [AIR 1964 SC 477]
The Supreme Court established that certiorari will issue when there is an "error of law apparent on the face of the record." The Court clarified that this ground does not permit the superior court to act as an appellate body — it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings of fact. The error must be manifest and self-evident from the record itself, without requiring elaborate argument to establish.
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 SC 233]
The Supreme Court laid down the foundational principle that certiorari can be issued against any body of persons having a legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, provided the body has a duty to act judicially. This decision extended the reach of certiorari beyond traditional courts to include tribunals, commissions, and quasi-judicial authorities exercising adjudicatory functions.
Why this matters
Certiorari is the principal remedy available to citizens and litigants aggrieved by illegal or jurisdictionally flawed orders of subordinate courts and tribunals. In the Indian legal system, where a vast number of disputes are adjudicated by quasi-judicial bodies — labour courts, rent control tribunals, consumer forums, income tax appellate tribunals, and regulatory authorities — certiorari serves as the critical check against jurisdictional overreach and procedural unfairness.
For practitioners, the distinction between certiorari and appeal is fundamental. Certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. A High Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction will not re-examine the merits of the case, reweigh evidence, or interfere with findings of fact. The scope is limited to jurisdictional errors, procedural violations, errors of law apparent on the record, and breaches of natural justice. Filing a certiorari petition when an appellate remedy exists may result in dismissal on the ground of alternative remedy, unless the petitioner demonstrates that the order is a nullity or that the alternative remedy is inadequate.
A practical point that practitioners frequently encounter is the overlap between certiorari under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. While both can correct inferior court orders, the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai clarified that certiorari under Article 226 is wider in that it can correct errors of law apparent on the record, whereas Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors. The choice of provision affects the scope of relief available.
Related terms
Parent concept:
Sibling writs:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
On what grounds can a writ of certiorari be issued?
Certiorari can be issued on four established grounds: (i) want of jurisdiction — the inferior court or tribunal had no authority to decide the matter; (ii) excess of jurisdiction — the body exceeded the limits of its authority; (iii) error of law apparent on the face of the record — a manifest legal error that does not require elaborate argument to identify; and (iv) violation of principles of natural justice — such as deciding a matter without hearing the affected party (audi alteram partem) or a decision-maker having a personal interest in the outcome (nemo judex in causa sua).
What is the difference between certiorari and appeal?
An appeal allows a superior court to re-examine the merits of the case, including questions of fact and law, and to substitute its own decision. Certiorari is not concerned with the merits but only with the legality and jurisdiction of the inferior court's decision. A certiorari court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its findings of fact. The Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob (1964) held that certiorari is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and does not function as a disguised appeal.
Can certiorari be issued against a private body?
Certiorari lies against bodies that have a legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and are under a duty to act judicially. Pure private bodies acting in a private capacity are generally not amenable to certiorari. However, if a private body exercises statutory power or performs a public function with adjudicatory character — such as a private university conducting disciplinary proceedings under its statute — certiorari may be available.
What is the difference between certiorari under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227?
Under Article 226, certiorari can correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record even without jurisdictional error. Under Article 227, the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors of subordinate courts and tribunals. Additionally, certiorari under Article 226 can issue against any person or authority, while Article 227 applies specifically to courts and tribunals within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.