• Article 226 of the Indian Constitution provides for the power of the High Courts to issue certain writs. To secure liberty of the individual, the High Court can issue the writ of Habeas Corpus.
• The writ is issued by the court whose object is to secure the release of a person found to be detained illegally and source the liberty of the individual.
• The Supreme Court also has the power to issue writs under Article 32 of Indian Constitution for the rights animated in part III of the Constitution.

Golaknath case (1967):

* In this particular case, the Court reversed its earlier stance that the FRs (Fundamental Rights) can be amended.

* It said that FRs are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the FRs a new Constituent Assembly would be required.

* Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. This case conferred upon Fundamental Rights a ‘transcendental position’.

* The majority judgement called upon the concept of the implied limitations on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. As per this regard, the Constitution gives a place of the permanence to the fundamental freedoms of the citizens.

* In giving themselves the Constitution, the citizens had reserved these rights for themselves.

Kesavananda Bharati case (1973):

* This was a landmark judgement in defining the basic structure doctrine.

* The Supreme Court held that, however, no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the ‘basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.’

* The judgement implied that the Parliament could only amend the Constitution and not rewrite it. The power to amend is not a power to destroy.

* This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down an amendment passed by Parliament that conflicts with the basic structure of the Constitution.

Minerva Mills case (1980):

* This case again strengthens the doctrine of the basic structure. The judgement struck down two changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic structure.

* The judgement makes it clear that the Indian Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.

* In this case, the Court added two features to the list of basic structural components. They were: judicial review and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP.

* The judges ruled that a limited amending power itself is a fundamental feature of the Constitution.

Article 32(2) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs.

And Article 226(1) of the Constitution provides similar power to the High Courts.

Using the Writ of Prohibition, the Supreme Court or the High Courts may prohibit any lower Judicial or Quasi-Judicial body who are exercising powers beyond their jurisdiction or infringing the rule of Natural Justice.

The Writ can be issued against any Tribunal, Commission, or a Magistrate or any other Judiciary Officer.

• The SC has advisory jurisdiction over the matters that have been specifically referred to it by the Indian President under Article 143 of the Constitution.
• There is no specific provision for such kind of an advisory jurisdiction in the Constitution of the USA or that of Australia.
• The USA Supreme Court has refused to entertain such kind of pleas by the Executive, it stated that it will put the focus on more concrete matters concerning the law of the land.
• Although, according to Section 60 of the Canadian Supreme Court Act of 1906, the Governor-General may refer to the important questions of law to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.
• A similar provision which empowered the Federal Court to give an advisory opinion on the matters referred can be found in Section 213(1) of the GoI Act, 1935.
• The draft constitution later replaced the words ‘Governor-General’ and ‘Federal Court’ with ‘President’ and ‘Supreme Court’ respectively.

According to Article 217, the Chief Justice Of The High Court is appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief justice of India as well as the Governor of the respective state.

The discretionary powers of Governor in the state regarding the executive and legislative decisions are much more extensive in comparison to the President in the centre in India, and it is guaranteed by:

Article 163(1) of the Constitution says that there shall be a Council of Ministers in the states with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in exercise his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

And Article 163(3): The question whether any and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court.

While appointing the Governor two conventions are generally by the President :

1) The person should not belongs to the state he is being appointed to.

2) Consultation of the Chief Minister of the respective state.