page_title: Remedies in Singapore constitutional law
section_title: Quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders
hierarchical_section_title: Remedies in Singapore constitutional law / Challenging a public authority's act or decision as unconstitutional / Procedure for seeking prerogative orders / Quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders
caption_attribution_description: English: A diagram showing the two-stage procedure under Order 53 of the Rules of Court of Singapore.
context_page_description: The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.
  The High Court also has the power to grant declarations to strike down unconstitutional legislation.
context_section_description: The procedure for bringing applications for prerogative orders is set out in Order 53 of the Rules of Court ("O. 53"). It is a two-stage process. At the first stage, the applicant must request the High Court for leave to apply for one or more prerogative orders. An application for such leave must be made by ex parte originating summons and must be supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought; and by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on.
  The test for whether leave should be granted is expressed in Public Service Commission v. Lai Swee Lin Linda (2001). The court is "not to embark upon any detailed and microscopic analysis of the material placed before it but ... to peruse the material before it quickly and appraise whether such material disclose[s] an arguable and a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion" that a public authority acted unlawfully.
  Leave for a quashing order must generally be applied for within three months of the act or decision that is sought to be quashed. However, an application for leave can still be allowed if the applicant can account for the delay to the satisfaction of the court. There is no specified time limit within which leave to apply for a mandatory order or prohibiting order must be sought. However, the High Court has held that such an application should be made without undue delay.
  Should leave be granted, the applicant can proceed to the second stage which is the actual application for one or more of the prerogative orders.
  Before O. 53 was amended in 2011, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration under O. 53 proceedings, as a declaration is not a prerogative order. If an applicant wished to obtain both prerogative orders and declarations, a separate action had to be commenced for the declarations. After the amendment, it is now possible to include a claim for a declaration if leave has been granted to the applicant to apply for prerogative orders.
caption: The two-stage procedure under O. 53 of the Rules of Court
exif: {"Image XResolution": "72", "Image YResolution": "72", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image ExifOffset": "78", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "387", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "419"}