A Challenge to Subordinate Legislation Requires Declaratory Relief, Not Certiorari.

The petitioner challenged the definition of “Indigenous Person” in Rule 2A(ii) of the Manipur Inner Line Permit Guidelines, 2019, as amended in 2022.

The petition sought, among other reliefs, a writ of mandamus or certiorari against the Gazette notification publishing the amendments.

The State informed the Court that the Guidelines and Amendment Guidelines were subordinate legislation made under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.

After the Court drew attention to the form of relief sought, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty for the petitioner or another concerned person to bring a fresh petition.

1. Whether a writ of certiorari is an appropriate relief when challenging the validity of a legislative measure or subordinate legislation.

2. Whether the petitioner could withdraw the petition while preserving the right to bring a fresh petition on the same issue.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, certiorari is ordinarily used to review and, where necessary, quash proceedings of inferior courts, tribunals, or authorities; it is not the appropriate relief for declaring a legislative measure unconstitutional or void.

The proper relief is a declaration of invalidity and, if consequential relief is required, mandamus or an equivalent direction restraining enforcement.

The Court relied on Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1984) 4 SCC 251, particularly paragraphs 38 and 50(3)–(4).

The petition challenged a provision in subordinate legislation but framed its relief, in part, as certiorari against the Gazette notification publishing the amendments.

Applying Prabodh Verma, the Court identified that certiorari was not the appropriate relief for a challenge to the validity of a legislative measure and noted the need to seek properly framed relief.

The Court did not assess the substantive validity of the definition; it accepted counsel’s request to withdraw the petition and seek liberty to file afresh.

The Court directed that delay in approaching it would not be held against the petitioner and that the time spent in the withdrawn proceeding would be excluded.

There was no order as to costs.