AAP Tax Law
Constitutional Law • Updated 29 August 2026

Affidavit for Writ of Prohibition under Article 226

Updated specimen affidavit for a High Court petition seeking to restrain a court, tribunal or authority from proceeding without jurisdiction or in excess of lawful jurisdiction, with separate guidance where the matter is genuinely a PIL.

Important correction: A writ of prohibition is not automatically a Public Interest Litigation. Prohibition is the constitutional remedy; PIL is a separate procedural/public-interest category. Use a PIL format only where the petitioner genuinely satisfies the applicable PIL rules and the case concerns public rather than private interest.

Article 226 expressly empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders and writs, including writs in the nature of prohibition. The writ is primarily preventive: it restrains a court, tribunal or authority from continuing a proceeding where it lacks jurisdiction, exceeds jurisdiction, violates fundamental legal limits, or proceeds in circumstances warranting constitutional intervention.

Nature of Remedy Preventive rather than merely corrective; it ordinarily operates before the impugned proceeding reaches final conclusion.
Typical Ground Lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental procedural limits or legally disqualifying circumstances.
PIL Status Optional and fact-dependent. A prohibition petition need not be a PIL.

Sample Affidavit for Writ of Prohibition under Article 226

This is a general specimen. Adapt the jurisdiction, impugned proceeding, grounds, respondents, interim relief, annexures and verification to the actual case and the Rules of the High Court concerned.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ______________________________ AT __________________
WRIT JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______ OF 20____

____________________________ PETITIONER

VERSUS

____________________________ & ORS. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, ____________________________, son/daughter/wife of ____________________________, aged about ____ years, resident of ________________________________________________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. That I am the petitioner / authorised representative of the petitioner in the accompanying writ petition and am well acquainted with its facts and circumstances. I am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That proceedings bearing No. ____________ titled ____________________________ are presently pending before ____________________________.

3. That the petitioner seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent court / tribunal / authority from proceeding further in the said matter for the reasons pleaded in the writ petition.

4. That the jurisdictional defect or legal bar relied upon by the petitioner is: ________________________________________________________________________________.

5. That if the impugned proceedings are permitted to continue, the petitioner apprehends the following prejudice or failure of justice: ________________________________________________________________________________.

6. That where bias, conflict of interest or legally disqualifying circumstances are relied upon, the petitioner relies only on the specific facts set out in the writ petition and does not make vague, scandalous or unsupported allegations.

7. That this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action, wholly or in material part, arose within its jurisdiction and/or the respondent authority falls within Article 226.

8. That any statutory appeal, revision, review or other alternative remedy available to the petitioner has been disclosed, together with the reasons why immediate constitutional intervention is sought.

9. That the accompanying writ petition has been prepared under my instructions. I have read and understood its factual contents and state that they are true and correct to my knowledge and/or based on records believed by me to be true.

10. That the annexures filed with the petition are true copies of the documents referred to therein, subject to such certification as may be required by the applicable High Court Rules.

11. That the petition is filed bona fide and without suppression of any material fact.

12. That it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent court / tribunal / authority from proceeding further in the impugned matter, or grant such other relief as the facts and law warrant.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at ________________ on this ____ day of ________________, 20____, that the contents of paragraphs 1 to ____ above are true and correct to my knowledge and/or based on records and information believed by me to be true, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

Complete attestation, oath, identification and filing formalities under the applicable High Court Rules.

Article 226: Power of the High Court to Issue Prohibition

Article 226(1) empowers every High Court, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.

Article 226(2) also recognises jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territory of the High Court even if the seat of the Government or authority, or the residence of the person concerned, is outside those territories.

Official Constitution of India - Legislative Department

Common Grounds for a Writ of Prohibition

Depending on the facts, prohibition may be sought where the inferior court, tribunal or authority has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties, is exceeding the jurisdiction conferred by law, proposes to proceed in disregard of a statutory bar, or is acting in a manner that fundamentally violates natural justice or other controlling legal limits.

Where bias or disqualification is alleged, the petition should state concrete facts and show why continuation of the proceeding would undermine lawful adjudication. The correct expression is that the authority or adjudicator has refused to recuse, not "rescue".

Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Certiorari: Difference

Prohibition is ordinarily preventive. It restrains further exercise of jurisdiction before the impugned proceeding culminates in a final decision.

Certiorari is generally corrective. It is used, in an appropriate case, to quash an order or proceeding already made or concluded because of jurisdictional or serious legal error.

The practical distinction depends on the procedural stage and nature of the challenge. A petition should not mechanically ask for both writs without explaining which relief fits the impugned action.

When a Prohibition Petition Is Filed as Public Interest Litigation

A prohibition petition may be filed as a PIL only where the dispute genuinely concerns public interest and the petitioner satisfies the applicable PIL requirements. A private dispute does not become a PIL merely because the petition is labelled as one.

For the Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 continue to be listed on the Court's current official website. Those Rules define a PIL as a writ petition under Article 226 filed as a PIL or an eligible letter petition, and impose procedural and disclosure requirements intended to prevent private-interest litigation from being presented as public interest litigation.

Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 - official PDF

Optional PIL-specific affidavit statements

If the matter is genuinely filed as a PIL, the affidavit may additionally state that the petitioner has read and complied with the applicable PIL rules, has no undisclosed personal or private interest in the litigation, has undertaken reasonable inquiry into the facts, has disclosed the source of information and has filed the petition bona fide in public interest.

Alternative Remedy and Maintainability

The power under Article 226 is a basic constitutional power, but the High Court ordinarily exercises self-imposed restraint where legislation provides an effective statutory forum or remedy. The availability of an appeal, revision or other statutory mechanism should therefore be candidly disclosed and addressed.

Recent Supreme Court decisions continue to reiterate that Article 226 should not routinely bypass a statutory remedy. At the same time, jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice or other exceptional circumstances may materially affect the maintainability analysis.

Practical Filing Notes

  • Identify the exact pending proceeding, authority, tribunal or court sought to be restrained.
  • State whether the challenge is based on absence of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, statutory prohibition, natural-justice violation or another recognised legal ground.
  • Explain why prohibition is appropriate at the present procedural stage rather than certiorari after final adjudication.
  • Disclose appeals, revisions, objections or other statutory remedies already available or pursued.
  • If alleging bias, set out specific facts and avoid vague allegations against the adjudicator.
  • If the petition is a PIL, separately plead public interest, petitioner credentials, source of information, absence of personal gain and compliance with the applicable PIL rules.
  • Follow the particular High Court's rules regarding synopsis, list of dates, memo of parties, affidavit, annexures, court fees, attestation and e-filing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can prohibition be issued against a tribunal?

Yes, in an appropriate case the High Court may issue prohibition to a tribunal or authority acting without or beyond jurisdiction or in breach of fundamental legal limits.

Can prohibition be issued after a final order is passed?

Prohibition is ordinarily preventive. Once the impugned decision is made, the appropriate relief may instead be certiorari or another statutory or constitutional remedy, depending on the facts.

Must a writ of prohibition be filed as a PIL?

No. Most prohibition petitions are ordinary writ proceedings brought by an affected party. PIL requirements apply only when the case is genuinely brought in public interest.

Can prohibition be sought merely because the petitioner expects an adverse decision?

No. The remedy ordinarily requires a jurisdictional or serious legal defect. Mere apprehension of an unfavourable outcome is not enough.

Legal information notice: This is a general drafting specimen. Maintainability depends on the nature and stage of the proceeding, jurisdictional defect alleged, statutory remedies, territorial jurisdiction and the procedural rules of the particular High Court.