RAS question
Which writ is issued against a person who holds a public office without being legally entitled to it?
Correct answer: (A) Quo Warranto.
Quo warranto is the writ issued against a person who holds a public office without legal authority or entitlement.
Explanation
Quo warranto literally asks “by what authority” a person claims to hold an office. Its purpose is to examine the legality of a claim to public office and prevent usurpation. Supreme Court of India, Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Ors. treats quo warranto as the proceeding through which a person holding an independent substantive public office is called upon to show the legal right by which the office is held. If the person has no title to the office, the court may oust that person by judicial order. This is why the writ fits a question about someone occupying a public office to which he is not legally entitled. It is not about detention, transfer of proceedings, or compelling performance of a duty.
Why the other options are wrong
- (B) Certiorari is aimed at transferring or correcting proceedings from a lower court or authority, not at asking a public-office holder to prove legal entitlement to that office.
- (C) Habeas corpus addresses unlawful detention, so it protects personal liberty rather than testing whether a person is a lawful holder of a public office.
- (D) Mandamus commands a public official to perform a legal duty, whereas quo warranto challenges the authority by which a person occupies the office itself.
Concept
This tests the constitutional remedies topic, especially the functional difference between the five writs. RAS repeatedly asks it because writ jurisdiction is a core bridge between fundamental rights, judicial review, and public accountability.