With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements : 1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty. 2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company. 3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto. Which of the statements given above are correct ?

Correct Option The correct option is 1, 2 and 3 Explanation Writs under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary remedies. Each writ has specific conditions governing against whom it may be issued and who may petition for it. Statement-wise Analysis - Statement 1 - Correct: The writ of Mandamus is issued to compel the performance of a public duty. It will not lie against a purely private organisation unless that organisation is specifically entrusted with a public duty by statute or law. The fundamental prerequisite for issuing Mandamus is the existence of a legally enforceable public duty on the part of the respondent. In the absence of such a public duty, a private organisation cannot be subjected to this writ. - Statement 2 - Correct: Mandamus will not lie against a Company even if it is a Government Company, as long as the company is not discharging a public duty imposed by statute. A Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act operates in a commercial capacity, and unless it is performing a statutory public duty, it cannot be compelled through a writ of Mandamus. The mere fact that the Government holds majority shareholding does not automatically make the company's functions a public duty amenable to Mandamus. - Statement 3 - Correct: The writ of Quo Warranto is a writ of public interest that challenges the legality of a person's claim to a public office. Unlike other writs that require the petitioner to be an aggrieved party with a personal interest, Quo Warranto can be sought by any public-minded person. The petitioner need not have any personal grievance or direct interest in the matter - the public interest in ensuring that public offices are held only by legally entitled persons is sufficient standing to file such a petition. Key Takeaway: Mandamus requires a legally enforceable public duty - it will not lie against private organisations without public duty nor against Government Companies acting in purely commercial capacity; Quo Warranto uniquely allows any public-minded citizen to challenge unlawful occupation of public office without requiring a personal grievance.

IAS 2022 — Political Science Indian Polity

2022mcqmedium

With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements :

Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct ?

Official previous-year question

Verified 2 Aug 2026.

Options

A1 and 2 only
B2 and 3 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Did you get this right?

Solution

Correct Option

The correct option is 1, 2 and 3

Explanation

Writs under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary remedies. Each writ has specific conditions governing against whom it may be issued and who may petition for it.

Statement-wise Analysis

Statement 1 - Correct: The writ of Mandamus is issued to compel the performance of a public duty. It will not lie against a purely private organisation unless that organisation is specifically entrusted with a public duty by statute or law. The fundamental prerequisite for issuing Mandamus is the existence of a legally enforceable public duty on the part of the respondent. In the absence of such a public duty, a private organisation cannot be subjected to this writ.
Statement 2 - Correct: Mandamus will not lie against a Company even if it is a Government Company, as long as the company is not discharging a public duty imposed by statute. A Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act operates in a commercial capacity, and unless it is performing a statutory public duty, it cannot be compelled through a writ of Mandamus. The mere fact that the Government holds majority shareholding does not automatically make the company's functions a public duty amenable to Mandamus.
Statement 3 - Correct: The writ of Quo Warranto is a writ of public interest that challenges the legality of a person's claim to a public office. Unlike other writs that require the petitioner to be an aggrieved party with a personal interest, Quo Warranto can be sought by any public-minded person. The petitioner need not have any personal grievance or direct interest in the matter - the public interest in ensuring that public offices are held only by legally entitled persons is sufficient standing to file such a petition.

Key Takeaway: Mandamus requires a legally enforceable public duty - it will not lie against private organisations without public duty nor against Government Companies acting in purely commercial capacity; Quo Warranto uniquely allows any public-minded citizen to challenge unlawful occupation of public office without requiring a personal grievance.

Your note

IAS Indian Polity in other years

Indian Polity 2026 Indian Polity 2025 Indian Polity 2024 Indian Polity 2023 Indian Polity 2021 Indian Polity 2020 Indian Polity 2019 Indian Polity 2018 Indian Polity 2017 Indian Polity 2016 Indian Polity 2015 Indian Polity 2014

More IAS Indian Polity questions

Consider the following statements with reference to the Constitution of India: 1. There is no Article in the Constitution of India that specifies that the Constitution of India will be officially called the 'Constitution of India'. 2. There is no Article in the Constitution of India that specifies that the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1935 stand repealed. 3. There is no Article in the Constitution of India that mentions 26th January, 1950 as the date of the commencement of the Constitution of India. Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct?

2026hard

'X' was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term 'law' as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. 'X' explained that the meaning of the term 'law' in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. 'Y' pointed out that the term 'law' in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which 'X' was not convinced. Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below:

2026medium

In a multi-ethnic district where both economic competition and historical grievances frequently led to community tensions, a flashpoint has arisen with a Government decision to allocate land for a waste management facility near a tribal hamlet, sparking protests by the tribal community, which claimed that the land was sacred and critical to their cultural identity. At the same time, urban residents and local industries supported the project, citing severe solid waste challenges and health concerns due to lack of a proper disposal site. The conflict has escalated with road blockades, social media campaigns, and allegations of police excesses. As a responsible Government official, you are tasked with resolving the situation through mediation, ensuring a sustainable outcome that balances environmental needs, tribal rights, and urban public health. Consider the following statements with reference to the above: 1. A successful conflict resolution process must begin with acknowledging the cultural concerns of the protesting tribal community before discussing technical alternatives. 2. The Government should move ahead with the project without delay to address urban health concerns, which outweigh the sentiments of a small group. 3. Creating a multi-stakeholder dialogue platform — including tribal leaders, environmental experts, and municipal representatives — to build mutual understanding and help de-escalate tensions. 4. Conducting an independent Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and sharing findings transparently with both sides to facilitate evidence-based decision-making. Which of the statements given above would contribute to the resolution process?

2026medium

Ms. X is a mid-level civil service official working in the urban development department of a major city. Recently, she was involved in approving a contract for a public infrastructure project — a new community park. During the approval process, she received a piece of confidential information indicating that one of the shortlisted contractors had a history of poor workmanship and allegations of corruption in other cities, though nothing had been legally proven. The Head of the Department, Mr. Y, advised her not to disclose this information to the project committee or the public because it could delay the project and damage the city's reputation. However, Ms. X believed that withholding such information compromised transparency and public trust. What amongst the following should Ms. X do now? 1. Immediately disclose the information to the project committee and the public 2. Recommend removing the contractor from the shortlist to protect the project's integrity 3. Propose a 'limited disclosure' to an oversight committee, while keeping the information confidential from the public for the time being Select the answer using the code given below :

2026medium

Consider the following statements about the Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the Parliament of India: 1. Although members of this Committee are elected from both Houses of Parliament, the Chairperson of this Committee is appointed by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. 2. Twenty members are elected by the Rajya Sabha and ten members by the Lok Sabha. 3. No Minister, except for the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, is eligible to be a member of this Committee. 4. Members are elected for a fixed term of two years from the date they enter their office. Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct?

2026medium

View all Indian Polity questions

Keep practicing Indian Polity

Work through every IAS Indian Polity PYQ, year by year.

Browse all Political Science topics

Correct Option

The correct option is 1, 2 and 3

Explanation

Writs under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary remedies. Each writ has specific conditions governing against whom it may be issued and who may petition for it.

Statement-wise Analysis

Statement 1 - Correct: The writ of Mandamus is issued to compel the performance of a public duty. It will not lie against a purely private organisation unless that organisation is specifically entrusted with a public duty by statute or law. The fundamental prerequisite for issuing Mandamus is the existence of a legally enforceable public duty on the part of the respondent. In the absence of such a public duty, a private organisation cannot be subjected to this writ.
Statement 2 - Correct: Mandamus will not lie against a Company even if it is a Government Company, as long as the company is not discharging a public duty imposed by statute. A Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act operates in a commercial capacity, and unless it is performing a statutory public duty, it cannot be compelled through a writ of Mandamus. The mere fact that the Government holds majority shareholding does not automatically make the company's functions a public duty amenable to Mandamus.
Statement 3 - Correct: The writ of Quo Warranto is a writ of public interest that challenges the legality of a person's claim to a public office. Unlike other writs that require the petitioner to be an aggrieved party with a personal interest, Quo Warranto can be sought by any public-minded person. The petitioner need not have any personal grievance or direct interest in the matter - the public interest in ensuring that public offices are held only by legally entitled persons is sufficient standing to file such a petition.