Congress expanded the writ following the Civil War, allowing for habeas relief to state prisoners if they were held in custody in violation of federal law. Federal courts granted habeas relief to state prisoners by finding that the state court lacked the proper jurisdiction. Post-World War II reforms further expanded the writ: through the incorporation process by which the Bill of Rights was applied to the states, habeas corpus became a tool by which criminal defendants sought to uphold their civil rights against illegal state action.
The Warren Court further paved the way for broader habeas corpus rights. AEDPA has three important aspects: first, it imposes a one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions.
Second, unless a United States Court of Appeals gave its approval, a petitioner may not file successive habeas corpus petitions. The Detainee Treatment Act of DTA and the Military Commissions Act of MCA further narrowed the scope of habeas relief, providing that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay may not access the federal courts through habeas corpus; instead, they must go through the military commissions and then seek appeal in the D.
Circuit Court. However, the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush expanded the territorial reach of habeas corpus, ruling that the Suspension Clause affirmatively guaranteed the right to habeas review. Thus, alien detainees designated as enemy combatants who were held outside the United States had the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Federal statutes 28 U. There are two prerequisites for habeas review: the petitioner must be in custody when the petition is filed, and a prisoner who is held in state government custody must have exhausted all state remedies, including state appellate review.
Any federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who is within its jurisdiction. The habeas petition must be in writing and signed and verified either by the petitioner seeking relief or by someone acting on his or her behalf.
Federal courts are not required to hear the petition if a previous petition presented the same issues and no new grounds were brought up. Finally, a federal judge may dismiss the petition for the writ of habeas corpus if it is clear from the face of the petition that there are no possible grounds for relief.
An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas. WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.
For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters; be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority thereof.
By using this site, you agree we can set and use cookies. For more details of these cookies and how to disable them, see our cookie policy. Sign up for our e-newsletter. Search our website. In Kumar Padma Padam Prasad v. Srivastava was appointed as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court by the President of India by a warrant of appointment under his seal.
A petition was filed for issuing a writ of quo-warranto contending that Mr K. Srivastava was not qualified for the office. It was held by the Supreme Court that since Mr K. Srivastava was not qualified, quo warranto could be issued and accordingly the appointment of Mr K. Srivastava was quashed.
In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v. The High Court of Patna refused to issue the writ of Quo Warranto because it was not a public office.
Certiorari is a curative writ. When the Court is of the opinion that a lower court or a tribunal has passed an order which is beyond its powers or committed an error of law then, through the writ of certiorari, it may transfer the case to itself or quash the order passed by the lower court or tribunal. A writ of certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court or High Court to the subordinate courts or tribunal in the following circumstances:.
A writ of prohibition is issued by a Court to prohibit the lower courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities from doing something beyond their authority. It is issued to direct inactivity and thus differs from mandamus which directs activity.
It is issued when the lower court or tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of rules of natural justice or in contravention of fundamental rights. It can also be issued when a lower court or tribunal acts under a law that is itself ultra vires. The difference between the writ of certiorari and prohibition is that they are issued at different stages of proceedings of the case.
The writ of certiorari is issued after the case is heard and decided. It is issued to quash the decision or order of the lower court when the lower court passed an order without or in excess of jurisdiction. Whereas, the writ of prohibition is issued prohibiting the proceedings in the lower court which acts without or in excess of jurisdiction while the case is pending before it. A writ petition can be filed by any person whose Fundamental Rights have been infringed by the State. Under a Public Interest Litigation, any public-spirited person may file a writ petition in the interest of the general public even if his own Fundamental Right has not been infringed.
Under Article 32, a writ petition can be filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can issue a writ only if the petitioner can prove that his Fundamental Right has been infringed. It is important to note that the right to approach the Supreme Court in case of a violation of a Fundamental Right is in itself a Fundamental Right since it is contained in Part III of the Constitution.
Under Article , a writ petition can be filed before any High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises, either wholly or in part. It is immaterial if the authority against whom the writ petition is filed is within the territory or not.
The power of the High Court to issue a writ is much wider than that of the Supreme Court. The High Court may grant a writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose such as violation of any statutory duties by a statutory authority.
Thus, a writ petition filed before a Supreme Court can be filed against a private person too. Where a fundamental right has been infringed, either the Supreme Court or the High Court can be resorted to. It is not necessary to go to the High Court first and only thereafter approach the Supreme Court.
0コメント