Distinguish between the following: Habeas Corpus and Mandamus.

Answer 2A(ii) Habeas Corpus: The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available to a person who is confined without legal justification. The words "Habeas Corpus" literally mean "to have a body". This is an order to let the Court know on what ground he has been confined and to set him free if there is no legal justification for his detention. This writ has to be obeyed by the detaining authority by production of the person before the Court. Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, any person may move the Supreme Court and the High Court of competent jurisdiction respectively, for the issue of this writ. The applicant may be the prisoner himself moving the Court or any other person may move the Court on his behalf to secure his liberty praying for the issue of the writ of habeas corpus. No person can be punished or deprived of his personal liberty except for violation of any law and in accordance with the due process of law. Dis-obedience to the writ of habeas corpus attracts punishment for contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Mandamus: The expression "mandamus" means a command. The writ of mandamus is, thus, a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior Court or Government authority requiring him to do a particular thing therein specified which pertains to his or their office and is further in the nature of a public duty. This writ is used when the inferior tribunal has declined to exercise jurisdiction. Mandamus can be issued against any public authority. The applicant must have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the person against whom the writ is prayed. Mandamus is not issued if the public authority has a discretion. Mandamus can be issued by the Supreme Court and all the High Courts to all authorities. However, it does not lie against the President of India or the Governor of a State for the exercise of their duties and powers (Article 360 of the Constitution of India). It also does not lie against a private individual or body except where the State is in collusion with such private party in the matter of contravention of any provision of the Constitution or of a Statute. It is a discretionary remedy and the Court may refuse if alternative remedy exists except in case of infringement of Fundamental Rights.