Which article of the Constitution of India empowers the High Courts to issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose?

The correct answer is C, Certiorari. Certiorari is Latin for to be certified or to be informed, and the writ does exactly that: a higher court calls up the record of a case from a lower court or tribunal, either to transfer the matter to itself or to quash an order already passed because of excess of jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction or an error of law. It is a curative writ, issued after the order exists. Option A is wrong because prohibition means to forbid; it is preventive and stops a subordinate court while the proceeding is still pending. Option B is wrong because quo warranto means by what authority and questions a person's title to a public office. Option D is wrong because habeas corpus means to have the body of, and is used to produce a detained person before the court so that the legality of the detention can be tested.

The correct answer is D, Both (A) and (B). Habeas corpus can be issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32, where it is a remedy for the breach of the Fundamental Right to personal liberty, and by every High Court under Article 226, which covers Fundamental Rights and any other purpose as well. Options A and B are each incomplete for that reason: naming only one of the two courts leaves out a jurisdiction the Constitution expressly grants. Option C is wrong because a district and sessions court has no writ jurisdiction at all; writs are a constitutional power given only to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, and Article 32(3) allows Parliament to extend the power to another court, which it has never done. Remember also that habeas corpus is the one writ that can be issued against a private person as well as against the state.

The correct answer is B, Article 32. Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and empowers the Court to issue directions, orders and writs for that purpose, which is why it is titled the right to constitutional remedies and why Dr B. R. Ambedkar described it as the very soul of the Constitution. Option A is wrong because Article 19 lists the six freedoms, such as speech and expression and movement, and is a substantive right rather than a remedy. Option C is wrong because Article 226 is the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts; it is a constitutional power of those courts but it is not itself a Fundamental Right and it lies outside Part III. Option D is wrong because Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, again a substantive right.

The correct answer is B, Prohibition. Prohibition means to forbid. It is issued by a superior court to a lower court or a tribunal to stop it from continuing with a proceeding that lies beyond its jurisdiction, so by its nature it can be directed only at bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, never at an administrative or a legislative body. Option A is wrong because mandamus is issued precisely to administrative authorities and public officials to compel the performance of a public duty, although not to a private person. Option C is wrong because habeas corpus is directed at whoever holds a person in detention, which may be a public authority or even a private individual. Option D is wrong because quo warranto is directed at a person occupying a public office. Remember the pair: prohibition is preventive and certiorari is curative.

The correct answer is C, the President of India. Mandamus means we command, and it is issued to a public body or official to perform a public duty that it has refused to perform. The courts have, however, placed the President of India and the Governors of States outside its reach, along with the Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity, private individuals and bodies, purely discretionary duties, and obligations arising from an ordinary contract. Option A is wrong because a municipal corporation is a public authority with statutory duties and is a classic respondent to mandamus. Option B is wrong because an inferior court can be commanded to exercise a jurisdiction it has wrongly declined. Option D is wrong because a statutory tribunal is a public authority and, after L. Chandra Kumar in 1997, remains fully subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226.