COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WRIT JURISDICTION IN PAKISTAN, INDIA, AND THE UK: BALANCING CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY AND PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE OF LAW

Abstract

Writ jurisdiction serves as the ultimate constitutional safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of state power and the violation of fundamental rights. This article provides a critical comparative analysis of the writ jurisdictions in Pakistan, India, and the United Kingdom. While the UK serves as the historical progenitor of prerogative writs operating under an unwritten constitution, Pakistan and India have constitutionally entrenched these powers under Articles 199 & 184(3) and Articles 32 & 226, respectively. By analyzing the interplay between writ jurisdiction and procedural laws such as the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes, and by examining landmark jurisprudence on the exhaustion of alternative remedies and the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs), this study highlights the evolving nature of judicial review. It further explores the constitutional principles governing judicial intervention in administrative and executive actions, emphasizing the balance between judicial restraint and judicial activism. The article also evaluates the role of superior courts in ensuring governmental accountability, protecting the rule of law, and maintaining constitutional supremacy in democratic governance. A comparative examination of judicial approaches in the three jurisdictions reveals both convergences and divergences in the interpretation and application of extraordinary constitutional remedies. The findings contribute to the growing body of comparative constitutional scholarship by identifying best practices and proposing a coherent framework for enhancing the efficiency, accessibility, and consistency of writ jurisdiction in contemporary legal systems. The article concludes with novel, researcher-driven recommendations to address contemporary jurisprudential bottlenecks, aiming to streamline extraordinary constitutional remedies