Distinguish between Writ of Habeas Corpus and Quo-warranto.

Habeas Corpus The writ of 'habeas corpus' is a remedy available to a person who is confined without legal justification. This writ is used to release a person who has been unlawfully detained and imprisoned. 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 of India, 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. By virtue of this writ, the Court directs the person so detained to be brought before it to examine the legality of his detention. If the Court concludes that the detention was unlawful, then it directs the person to be released immediately. 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. Quo warranto The writ of 'quo warranto' is prayed, for an inquiry into the legality of the claim which a person asserts to an office or franchise and to oust him from such position if he is an usurper. The holder of the office has to show to the Court under what authority he holds the office. This writ is issued when: the office is of a public and of a substantive nature; the office is created by a Statute or by the Constitution itself; and the respondent must have asserted his claim to the office. It can issue even though he has not assumed charge of the office. The fundamental basis of the proceedings of 'quo warranto' is that the public has an interest to see that no unauthorised person usurps a public office. It is a discretionary remedy which the Court may grant or refuse. When an applicant challenges the validity of an appointment to a public office, it is maintainable whether or not any fundamental or other legal right of such person has been infringed. This writ is intended to safeguard against the usurpation of public offices.