When can a High Court issue a writ of Quo Warranto? SC answers [Read Judgment]

The power of High Courts to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which may be invoked only where it is indisputably established that a person is occupying a public office in contravention of law..In a judgment passed on Monday, the Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud affirmed this view while disposing of an appeal made against the orders of the Karnataka High Court..The case emanated initially from a challenge made to the appellant’s right to hold the post of Adhyaksha, which was reserved for certain castes in the Ballari Zilla Panchayat..The appellant had been elected to the post following indirect elections. She had qualified to contest the elections based on an Income and Caste certificate obtained shortly before the election and issued by the Tahshildar. Following the elections, the Income and Caste certificate was also duly submitted to the Caste Verification Committee..Petitions were subsequently filed by certain voters contending that the woman had fraudulently obtained the Income and Caste certificate. It was alleged that the Tahshildar had issued the certificate in contravention of law. Inter alia, the petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto to quash the appellant’s appointment as Adhyaksha..After a series of court battles involving the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, the case was eventually remanded back to the Single judge of the Karnataka High Court to decide..The Single Judge allowed the prayer for the issuance of of quo warranto, agreeing with the petitioners that there were discrepancies in the affidavits filed by the appellant for the purpose of elections and taking into account the casual manner in which the Tashildar issued the certificate..Simultaneously however, the Single Judge also noted that the Income and Caste certificate is still pending verification before the Caste Verification Committee. While the judge allowed the writ of quo warranto, he also held that a full-fledged inquiry should be held by the committee into the matter since it involved disputed questions of fact..In effect, the High Court did not quash the caste certificate as being void, but nevertheless issued a writ of quo warranto thereby setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Adhyaksha..Following cross appeals filed in the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court also affirmed the Single Judge’s view..In the appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the appellant-candidate was represented by Senior Advocate CA Sundaram, whereas the respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhawan and SM Chander Shekhar..The question before the court was: whether the High Court, in the facts of the present case, was justified in invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto?.On this question, it was firstly observed that a writ of quo warranto can be issued against a person occupying a public office, if the post is occupied by a person who is not eligible to be so appointed or incurs disqualification to continue occupying the post..More importantly however, the Court emphasised that the High Court had erred in allowing the prayer for a writ of qua warranto and quashing the appointment of the appellant, when the Income and Caste Certificate on the basis of which she had been elected had not been set aside yet. The Court observed,.“Interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited to judicial review of the decision-making process and not of the decision itself. .In this case, the final decision regarding the validity of Income and Caste Certificate issued to the appellant has been advisedly kept open, thereby the same, in law and in fact, is still valid and in force. .There is statutory presumption that such caste certificate shall be valid until it is cancelled by the Competent Authority.”.The Court found that the High Court had issued the writ of quo warranto against the appellant’s appointment, only based on prima facie observations that the Tashildar had issued the Certificate in mortal hurry thereby casting doubt on the entire transaction. In this background, the Court held,.“A writ of quo warranto cannot be issued on the basis of assumptions, inferences or suspicion regarding the factum of fulfillment of eligibility criteria. Being an extraordinary power, ordinarily such a writ ought to be issued only on the basis of indisputable facts leading to a singular conclusion that the incumbent was in fact or in law disqualified to occupy the public office or has incurred disqualification to continue to remain therein. Only whence such a person would fall within the description of an usurper of public office without legal authority….…the High Court could not have issued a writ of quo warranto. That writ could be issued only if the Income and Caste Certificate was held to be void or after it was invalidated by the Competent Authority.”.The Court relied on a number of precedents to discern this position. The Court, thus, found that “the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the Court has to satisfy itself that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.”.The apex court unequivocally held that unless this threshold is crossed, the High Court ought not to entertain the prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto..On this ground, the Court allowed the appeal. While setting aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court also directed the Caste Verification Committee to expedite the enquiry into the validity of the Income and Caste Certificate issued to the appellant and conclude the same preferably within two months..Read the judgment below.