Previous Year Question

A Writ of Prohibition is a preventive writ. It is issued by a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal when the latter is proceeding without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or in circumstances where further continuation of the proceedings would not be lawful. Its essential purpose is to prevent the improper proceeding from continuing.

The most important expression in the question is “during the pendency of proceedings.” In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, the Supreme Court explained the fundamental distinction between Prohibition and Certiorari—when proceedings before an inferior court are still continuing, Prohibition can stop their further continuation; once the proceedings have terminated in a decision, Certiorari is ordinarily the appropriate remedy for quashing that decision.

The distinction can therefore be remembered as—

Prohibition → proceedings are still pending → “stop; do not proceed further.”
Certiorari → decision/order has been made → “call for the record and quash the invalid order.”

Mandamus directs a public authority to perform a legal/public duty. Quo Warranto questions the legal authority by which a person occupies a public office. Hence, neither corresponds to the situation of pending judicial proceedings described in the question.

Under Article 32, the Supreme Court, and under Article 226, the High Courts, have constitutional authority to issue writs including Prohibition. The writ jurisdiction of High Courts also extends beyond Fundamental Rights to other legal purposes.