RAS question
The writ of 'Quo Warranto' can be issued against:
Correct answer: (B) A person who holds a public office without legal authority.
A writ of quo warranto lies against a person who holds a public office without legal authority.
Explanation
Quo warranto asks the holder of an office to show by what authority the office is being held. The Supreme Court describes it as a judicial remedy against an intruder or usurper of an independent substantive public office, where the holder may be ousted if the claim is not well founded. That is why option B is correct: the writ is not about ordinary misconduct or private disputes, but about testing the legality of a person's claim to a public office. The writ is limited to substantive public offices created by statute or the Constitution, and to cases where the appointment or holding of office lacks legal authority.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) This is too broad: quo warranto is not issued merely because a person is a Supreme Court judge; it is concerned with whether the person holds a public office without legal authority.
- (C) A person detained without trial raises the legality of detention, whereas quo warranto tests the authority by which a person holds a public office.
- (D) A private company violating contractual obligations is not a holder or usurper of an independent substantive public office, so quo warranto does not address that dispute.
Concept
This tests constitutional writ remedies, especially the purpose-specific use of quo warranto. It recurs in RAS because options often mix public-office usurpation with detention, judicial office, or private contractual disputes.