Prohibition / Prohibition /

Prohibition is a constitutional writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body, commanding it to refrain from exercising jurisdiction it does not possess or from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. It is prospective in character — it operates before the inferior tribunal delivers its decision, restraining it from proceeding further in a case where it lacks competence. This distinguishes prohibition from certiorari: prohibition stops the proceedings; certiorari quashes the decision already made.

The writ of prohibition emerged in English law as a common law tool to police the boundaries between different courts — the King's Bench used it to restrain ecclesiastical courts, admiralty courts, and other prerogative courts from encroaching on the jurisdiction of the common law courts. In India, it was received as one of the prerogative writs and is now guaranteed under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution as part of the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The distinction between prohibition and certiorari — though technically precise — has become less significant in Indian constitutional practice, because High Courts exercise their Article 226 jurisdiction flexibly. Courts have issued certiorari where prohibition was the technically correct writ and vice versa, without allowing the label to defeat the substance of the constitutional remedy. Where proceedings are ongoing, prohibition is the appropriate label; where a final order has been passed, certiorari is appropriate. Where the petitioner combines relief — stopping ongoing proceedings and quashing a prior order — both writs may be sought in combination.

Prohibition will not lie to restrain a court from exercising legitimate jurisdiction even if the petitioner believes the court's likely decision will be wrong. The petitioner must establish that the inferior court is acting or proposing to act outside the ambit of its jurisdiction — not merely that it is proceeding incorrectly within that jurisdiction. An erroneous decision within jurisdiction is correctable by appeal, not by prohibition. Only jurisdictional excesses — the court is acting on a matter it has no legal competence to decide — justify prohibition.

Prohibition has contemporary relevance in India primarily in: (1) challenges to the jurisdiction of specific tribunals (the NCLT, DRT, NCLAT, or state-level tribunals) to hear specific matters; (2) challenges to the jurisdiction of courts to try matters covered by arbitration clauses; and (3) challenges where a Magistrate or Sessions Court proposes to take cognizance of an offence that is time-barred under the relevant limitation provision. In each case, the petitioner argues that the inferior forum is about to exceed its power, and seeks prohibition before it does so.