Prohibition is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal, commanding it to cease proceedings in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction or in which it is exceeding its jurisdiction. Under Indian law, the writ of prohibition is issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and by High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Legal definition
The Constitution of India includes "prohibition" among the writs that may be issued under Articles 32 and 226, but does not provide a textual definition. The nature and scope of the writ have been developed through judicial interpretation.
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.
The writ of prohibition derives from the Latin "prohibeo" meaning "I forbid." It is a preventive writ — unlike certiorari, which quashes a decision already made, prohibition prevents an inferior court or tribunal from continuing with proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction. Prohibition operates prospectively: it arrests proceedings that are pending, whereas certiorari operates retrospectively to annul a completed order.
The essential prerequisites for the issuance of prohibition are: (i) a judicial or quasi-judicial body is exercising or about to exercise jurisdiction; (ii) such jurisdiction is without legal authority or in excess of its authority; and (iii) the proceedings are still pending and no final order has been passed.
How courts have interpreted this term
East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893]
The Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition is issued to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction that it does not possess. The Court clarified that prohibition is available not only when the inferior body has no jurisdiction at all, but also when it is acting in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the rules of natural justice. The Court further held that prohibition can issue against any body acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, not merely against courts in the strict sense.
S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1274]
The Supreme Court drew the critical distinction between prohibition and certiorari: prohibition lies when proceedings are still pending before the inferior tribunal and no final order has been passed, while certiorari lies to quash a final order already made. If proceedings have concluded and an order has been passed, the appropriate remedy is certiorari, not prohibition. This temporal distinction is fundamental to the correct invocation of the writ.
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 SC 233]
The Supreme Court held that both prohibition and certiorari are available against any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, provided the body has a duty to act judicially. This extended the scope of prohibition beyond traditional courts to encompass tribunals and statutory authorities performing quasi-judicial functions.
Why this matters
The writ of prohibition serves as a critical safeguard against jurisdictional overreach by inferior courts and tribunals. In the Indian judicial system, with its extensive network of subordinate courts, tribunals, commissions, and quasi-judicial bodies, disputes about jurisdictional boundaries are frequent. Prohibition provides an immediate remedy to prevent a body from proceeding with a matter that it has no legal authority to decide, thereby saving litigants from the expense and hardship of undergoing a full trial before a forum that lacks jurisdiction.
For practitioners, the timing of invoking prohibition is crucial. Since the writ is preventive in nature, it must be sought while proceedings are still pending. Once a final order is passed, the appropriate remedy shifts to certiorari. In practice, petitioners often seek both writs together — prohibition to prevent further proceedings and certiorari to quash any interim or partial orders already passed. Courts frequently exercise both powers simultaneously when jurisdictional defects are established.
It is important to note that prohibition is the least frequently issued of the five constitutional writs. In most cases where an inferior court acts without jurisdiction, the aggrieved party challenges the final order through certiorari or appeal rather than seeking prohibition during the pendency of proceedings. However, prohibition remains valuable where continuing the proceedings themselves would cause irreparable harm — for instance, where a criminal court assumes jurisdiction over an offence that is triable exclusively by a special court, or where a civil court entertains a suit barred by a specific statutory prohibition.
Related terms
Parent concept:
Sibling writs:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between prohibition and certiorari?
Prohibition is a preventive writ issued to stop an inferior court or tribunal from continuing proceedings that are beyond its jurisdiction. Certiorari is a corrective writ issued to quash a decision or order already made. Prohibition operates prospectively (preventing future action), while certiorari operates retrospectively (annulling a past action). If proceedings are still pending, prohibition is the appropriate writ; if a final order has been passed, certiorari is the correct remedy.
Against whom can a writ of prohibition be issued?
Prohibition can be issued against any body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions — including subordinate courts, tribunals, commissions, and statutory authorities. It cannot be issued against a body acting in a purely administrative or executive capacity. The body must be under a duty to act judicially, and it must be exercising or about to exercise jurisdiction that it does not lawfully possess.
Can prohibition be issued against a High Court?
A High Court cannot issue a writ of prohibition against itself. However, the Supreme Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, issue prohibition to a High Court in exceptional circumstances — though this is extremely rare. More commonly, the Supreme Court exercises its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) to correct High Court orders rather than issuing prohibition.
Is prohibition available when an alternative remedy exists?
Courts generally decline to issue prohibition when an efficacious alternative remedy, such as an appeal or revision, is available. However, exceptions exist: where the inferior court or tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction (the proceedings are a nullity), where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, or where continuing the proceedings would cause irreparable harm, courts may issue prohibition notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.
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.