Definition
A writ issued by the Supreme Court or High Court to an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body to stop it from proceeding further with a case that is beyond its jurisdiction.
The writ of prohibition is preventive — it stops an inferior court from doing something it has no power to do. Where certiorari is corrective (quashing a completed illegal act), prohibition is anticipatory (preventing the illegal act before it is completed). It lies when an inferior court is about to assume or is already exercising jurisdiction it does not possess. Prohibition operates during the pendency of proceedings — after the final order is made, certiorari is the appropriate remedy. The difference between prohibition and certiorari is thus one of timing: prohibition prevents; certiorari cures.
Statutory Definition
Article 226, Constitution of India: High Courts have power to issue writs in the nature of prohibition. Article 32: Supreme Court has the same power. The scope of prohibition in India extends beyond jurisdictional errors to cover violations of natural justice that are occurring during pending proceedings.
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'prohibitio' (a restraining, a forbidding) from 'prohibere' (to hold back, to forbid). The writ prohibits — it holds back the inferior court from proceeding in a matter it has no right to handle.
Full Legal Analysis
Writ of Prohibition: Stopping Excess Before It Is Complete
Prohibition is the proactive counterpart to certiorari. Instead of waiting for an inferior court to make an illegal order and then quashing it, prohibition prevents the illegal exercise of jurisdiction before the harm is done. Courts have held that prevention is better than cure — if a court is about to cross the bounds of its jurisdiction, stopping it before it does is more efficient than undoing the consequences after.
When Prohibition Lies
The writ of prohibition lies when: (a) an inferior court is about to assume jurisdiction it does not have; (b) a court is exercising jurisdiction properly vested but is about to do something in the course of that exercise that violates natural justice (e.g., refusing to give the other party a hearing); or (c) a court having jurisdiction over part of a matter is about to deal with part beyond its jurisdiction. It does NOT lie after the final order — certiorari is then the remedy.
Distinction from Certiorari
The practical distinction: (a) Timing: Prohibition = during proceedings (before final order); Certiorari = after final order. (b) Effect: Prohibition stops further proceedings; Certiorari quashes what has already been done. (c) In practice, both writs are often combined — a petitioner applies for prohibition (if proceedings are ongoing) and certiorari (to quash any orders already made), so all stages are covered.
Prohibition and Natural Justice
Prohibition lies not only for want of jurisdiction but also for violations of natural justice occurring during the proceedings. If a party can show that the inferior court is conducting proceedings in a manner that violates their right to be heard — not giving them documents, refusing to allow cross-examination of witnesses — prohibition can issue to stop those proceedings and require them to be conducted fairly. This makes prohibition a powerful tool for ensuring procedural fairness in quasi-judicial bodies.
“Prohibition is the judicial equivalent of a stop sign — placed before the inferior court overreaches, not after. It reflects the principle that prevention of injustice is preferable to its correction.”
This Term in Indian Statutes
Constitution of India, 1950
"Every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition, and others."
Constitutional basis of prohibition writ — preventive, applies during pending proceedings
