Writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226

Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance · Unit V · Topic 18 of 19 · 5 min read

Choosing between Article 32 and Article 226, the five writs and when each lies, the alternative-remedy rule and its exceptions after Whirlpool, the parts of a writ petition, interim relief under Article 226(3), and a model writ of certiorari and mandamus before the Karnataka High Court.

← All Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance topics

On this page

1. Article 32 or Article 226
2. The writs
3. Maintainability: what the petition must show
4. Interim relief: Article 226(3)
5. Parts of a writ petition
6. Model writ petition
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

A writ petition is a pleading against the State. The petitioner must show a right, a public authority that has infringed it, the illegality in what the authority did, and the writ that will cure it. Facts are stated as in a plaint; the grounds are stated as in an appeal; the prayer names the writ.

1. Article 32 or Article 226

Article 32 gives a right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of the fundamental rights in Part III. The right to move is itself a fundamental right: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 INSC 14, AIR 1950 SC 124. A petition that raises no fundamental right is not maintainable under Article 32.
Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights “and for any other purpose”, so it extends to legal and statutory rights. It is wider in scope, but discretionary.
In practice the Supreme Court often asks petitioners to approach the High Court first. Unless the matter is of national importance or affects many States, file under Article 226.

2. The writs

Habeas corpus: production of a person in unlawful detention.
Mandamus: to compel a public authority to perform a public duty imposed by law. The petitioner should first demand performance and plead the refusal.
Certiorari: to quash a decision of an inferior body for want or excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice or an error of law apparent on the record.
Prohibition: to stop an inferior body from proceeding without jurisdiction.
Quo warranto: to ask by what authority a person holds a public office.

3. Maintainability: what the petition must show

Respondent is “State” under Article 12, or a body performing a public duty.
Standing: the petitioner is aggrieved (relaxed in public interest litigation: see the next note).
Alternative remedy. The existence of a statutory appeal is a rule of discretion, not a bar. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 INSC 400, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the High Court may entertain a writ despite an alternative remedy in at least three cases: where the petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right, where there has been a violation of natural justice, and where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. The petition should plead which exception applies.
Delay and laches: there is no fixed limitation, but unexplained delay defeats the petition. Explain any delay.
No suppression: a writ petitioner must disclose all material facts, including earlier proceedings. Suppression is a ground to dismiss without going into merits.

4. Interim relief: Article 226(3)

Where an interim order is made against a party without notice or without copies of the petition and supporting papers being furnished, and without hearing him, the party may apply to vacate it; the High Court must decide that application within two weeks, failing which the interim order stands vacated. Ask for interim relief by a separate application with its own grounds of urgency and balance of convenience.

5. Parts of a writ petition

Cause title: “In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru” (or the Dharwad or Kalaburagi Bench), W.P. No. ____ of 2026, with the jurisdiction invoked.
Parties, the respondents described by official designation.
Facts in numbered paragraphs, each document annexed and marked (Annexure A, B …).
The impugned order identified precisely.
Grounds, lettered, each a distinct illegality.
Statement on alternative remedy and on earlier proceedings.
Prayer for the writ, with consequential directions; interim prayer.
Verifying affidavit of the petitioner.

6. Model writ petition

Illustrative template, hypothetical facts.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH W.P. No. ____ of 2026

Petitioner: Sri Anand K. Shetty, partner, M/s Sapna Stores, Shop No. 3, Shrinagar, Dharwad.

Respondents: (1) Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, by its Commissioner; (2) the Health Officer, Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The petitioner’s firm holds a trade licence issued by the second respondent, valid till 31 March 2027 (Annexure A).
By an order dated 6 November 2026 (Annexure B), the second respondent cancelled the licence on the ground that the shop was causing obstruction on the footpath. No notice was issued and no hearing was given before the order.
The petitioner gave a representation on 8 November 2026 (Annexure C) pointing out that no goods are kept on the footpath, with photographs. It has not been considered.
On 12 November 2026 officials of the first respondent sealed the shop.

Grounds.

(A) The order cancelling a subsisting licence affects the petitioner’s right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) and was passed without notice or hearing, in breach of the principles of natural justice and of Article 14.
(B) The order gives no particulars of the alleged obstruction and is not supported by any inspection report; it is arbitrary.
(C) Sealing of the shop without any order to that effect is without authority of law.
(D) Though a statutory appeal lies, the petition falls within the exceptions in Whirlpool: it complains of breach of natural justice and of a fundamental right.

The petitioner has not filed any other petition or suit on the same cause of action.

Prayer. (a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6 November 2026 at Annexure B; (b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the seal and permit the petitioner to carry on business; (c) grant such other relief as the Court thinks fit. Interim prayer: stay the operation of Annexure B and direct the respondents to remove the seal pending disposal.

Sd/- Advocate for Petitioner. Filed with: verifying affidavit; Annexures A to C; application for interim relief.

Trap. A writ is not the remedy for a purely private dispute, such as a breach of a contract between two private persons, or for disputed questions of fact that need oral evidence. If the respondent is a private landlord, the remedy is a suit, not a writ.

How this is examined

Unit V asks for petitions under Articles 226 and 32 and a PIL petition, so the record should contain at least one writ petition under each Article (3 marks each); a habeas corpus petition is a useful extra. At the viva: the difference between Articles 32 and 226; the five writs; the alternative-remedy rule and Whirlpool; what Article 226(3) provides; and why a writ does not lie against a private person.