article 32 essay

• भाषा : हिंदी
• Classroom Courses
• Our Selections
• Student Login
• About NEXT IAS
• Director’s Desk
• Advisory Panel
• Faculty Panel
• General Studies Courses
• Optional Courses
• Interview Guidance Program
• Postal Courses
• Test Series
• Current Affairs
• Student Portal

• Prelims Analytica
• CSE (P) 2024 Solutions
• Pre Cum Main Foundation Courses
• 1 Year GSPM Foundation Course
• 2 Year Integrated GSPM Foundation Course: Elevate
• 3 Year Integrated GSPM Foundation Course: EDGE
• 2 Year GSPM Foundation with Advanced Integrated Mentorship (FAIM)
• Mentorship Courses
• 1 Year Advanced Integrated Mentorship (AIM)
• Early Start GS Courses
• 1 Year GS First Step
• Mains Specific
• Mains Advance Course (MAC) 2024
• Essay Guidance Program cum Test Series 2024
• Ethics Enhancer Course 2024
• Prelims Specific
• Weekly Current Affairs Course 2025
• Current Affairs for Prelims (CAP) 2025
• CSAT Course 2025
• CSAT EDGE 2025
• Optional Foundation Courses
• Mathematics
• Anthropology
• Political Science and International Relations (PSIR)
• Optional Advance Courses
• Political Science & International Relations (PSIR)
• Civil Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering
• Interview Guidance Programme / Personality Test Training Program
• GS + CSAT Postal Courses
• Current Affairs Magazine – Annual Subscription
• GS+CSAT Postal Study Course
• First Step Postal Course
• Postal Study Course for Optional Subjects
• Prelims Test Series for CSE 2025 (Offline/Online)
• General Studies
• GS Mains Test Series for CSE 2024
• Mains Test Series (Optional)
• PSIR (Political Science & International Relations)
• Paarth PSIR
• PSIR Answer Writing Program
• PSIR PRO Plus Test Series
• Mathematics Yearlong Test Series (MYTS) 2024
• Indian Economic Services
• ANUBHAV (All India Open Mock Test)
• ANUBHAV Prelims (GS + CSAT)
• ANUBHAV Mains
• Headlines of the Day
• Daily Current Affairs
• Editorial Analysis
• Monthly MCQ Compilation
• Monthly Current Affairs Magazine
• Previous Year Papers
• Down to Earth
• Kurukshetra
• Union Budget
• Economic Survey
• Download NCERTs
• NIOS Study Material
• Beyond Classroom
• Toppers’ Copies
• Indian Polity

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): Meaning, Provisions & Significance

The Right to Constitutional Remedies, enshrined as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, is pivotal for justice, accountability, and the protection of individual rights. It empowers citizens to seek redress for the violation of rights, which is crucial for safeguarding liberties in a democracy. This article of Next IAS delves into its key provisions including the writ jurisdiction, shedding light on their vital role in upholding democratic principles and fostering a just society.

Meaning of Constitutional Remedies

Constitutional Remedies refer to the legal mechanisms provided by the constitution of a country to safeguard and enforce the fundamental rights of individuals. These remedies empower citizens to seek relief from the judiciary when their constitutional rights are violated by the state or any other entity. These remedies serve as a crucial means of upholding the rule of law, ensuring accountability, and protecting the rights and liberties of citizens within a democratic society.

Right to Constitutional Remedies in India

The Right to Constitutional Remedies is a Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution of India. The detailed provisions related to the Right to Constitutional Remedies contained in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution serve as a bulwark against the infringement of fundamental rights in India. By providing a legal mechanism for enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen, this right makes the fundamental rights real.

Right to Constitutional Remedies: Provisions under the Indian Constitution

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution of India confers the Right to Constitutional Remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen. It contains the following four provisions in this regard:

• The right to move to the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights is guaranteed.
• The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights.
• Here, the phrase ‘any other court ’ does not include the High Court, because Article 226 has already conferred this power on the High Court.
• President can suspend the right to move to any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency.

The following points are to be noted with respect things the Right to Constitutional Remedies:

• This right makes the right to get the Fundamental Rights protected itself a Fundamental Right, thus making the Fundamental Rights real.
• Its significance made Dr. B.R. Ambedkar hail this right as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
• This provision makes the Supreme Court the defender and guarantor of Fundamental Rights.
• Original Powers – An aggrieved citizen can directly go to the Supreme Court, not necessarily by way of appeal.
• Wide Powers – The powers of the Supreme Court in this regard are not restricted to issuing orders or directions, but also writs of all kinds.
• Not Exclusive Powers – The powers of the Supreme Court in this regard are concurrent with that of any other court as empowered by the Parliament for this purpose. e.g. the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.
• Only Fundamental Rights, and not any other rights, can be enforced under Article 32 .

Supreme Court’s Views On Right to Constitutional Remedies

The Supreme Court has declared that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot be abridged or taken away even by way of a Constitutional Amendment Act.

About the Writs

• In the context of India , Writs refer to f ormal written orders issued by a court empowered for the purpose, which aimed at enforcing fundamental rights and correcting legal wrongs.
• In India, the power to issue writs is conferred only to the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226).
• It is to be noted that as per the provisions under Article 32, the Parliament can empower any other court to issue writs, without prejudicing the same powers of SC. However, no such provision has been made so far.
• The features of ‘Writs’ in India are borrowed from the Constitution of the UK where they are known as Prerogative Writs.

About the Writ Petitions

A writ petition is a formal written application or request submitted to the Supreme Court or a High Court seeking the issuance of a writ. These petitions are filed by individuals, organizations, or entities to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to protect their fundamental rights, enforce statutory rights, or challenge governmental or administrative actions.

Types of Writs

In India, the Supreme Court, the High Courts or any other courts empowered for the purpose can issue the following five types of writs:

Habeas Corpus

Prohibition.

• Quo Warranto
• The literal meaning of this term is – ‘to have the body of’.
• Thus, this writ is the bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention .
• detention is lawful,
• the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court,
• detention is by a competent court,
• detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
• The literal meaning of this term is – ‘ we command’ .
• It is a command issued by the court to a public official, asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform.
• It can be issued to a public official, a public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or the government for the same purpose.
• against a private individual or body,
• to enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force,
• when the duty is discretionary in nature,
• to enforce a contractual obligation,
• against the President of India, the State Governors, and the Chief Justice of a High Court.
• The literal meaning of this term is – ‘to forbid’.
• It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction that it does not possess.
• Thus, while the writ of ‘Mandamus’ directs activity , the writ of ‘Prohibition’ directs inactivity .
• The writ of prohibition can be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and cannot be issued against administrative authorities, legislative bodies, or private entities.
• The literal meaning of this term is – ‘to be certified’ or ‘to be informed’ .
• It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with the latter to itself or to squash the order of the latter in a case.
• Thus, while the writ of ‘Prohibition ’ is only preventive , the writ of ‘Certiorari’ is both preventive as well as curative.
• It can be issued against judicial, quasi-judicial, as well as administrative authorities, but not available against legislative bodies, private individuals or bodies, etc.

Quo-Warranto

• The literal meaning of this term is – ‘by what authority or warrant’.
• Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person.
• Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person.
• This writ can be issued only in the case of substantial public office of a permanent character created by a statute or by the Constitution. It cannot be issued in the case of ministerial or private offices.

Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court

The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from that of the High Courts in three respects:

Significance of Writs In the Indian Constitution

Writs, by their very nature, hold immense significance in the context of India. Some of their significance can be seen as follows:

• Protection of Fundamental Rights – These writs provide individuals with a swift and effective means to seek judicial intervention when their rights are infringed upon by the state or any other authority.
• Judicial Review – These writs enable the judiciary to exercise its power of judicial review over the actions of government bodies, administrative authorities, and other institutions. This ensures that governmental actions are lawful, within the scope of their authority, and consistent with constitutional provisions.
• Checks and Balances – These writs allow courts to review and potentially overturn decisions or orders of lower authorities. This contributes to maintaining a system of checks and balances within the system.
• Prevention of Abuse of Power – Writs such as mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto act as preventive measures against the arbitrary exercise of authority by public officials or bodies. They compel adherence to legal procedures, fairness, and transparency in decision-making processes.
• Ensuring Administrative Accountability – Writs hold administrative and judicial bodies accountable for their actions or omissions. They help rectify errors of law or excesses of jurisdiction thereby promoting administrative accountability and integrity.
• Promotion of Justice and Equity – Writs contribute to the promotion of justice and equity by providing individuals with access to timely and effective remedies against injustice, oppression, or unlawful deprivation of rights. They uphold the rule of law and ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens.

In conclusion, the Right to Constitutional Remedies stands as a cornerstone of democracy and justice. By enabling individuals to seek redressal of violations of their fundamental rights, they foster a just and equitable society. Thus, the Right to Constitutional Remedies serves as a bulwark against tyranny and injustice, embodying the essence of a vibrant and inclusive democracy.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is right to constitutional remedies .

The Right to Constitutional Remedies, enshrined in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, is a fundamental right that empowers individuals to seek legal remedies from the Supreme Court and High Courts for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

What is ‘Writ’ in Indian Constitution?

Writs refer to formal written orders issued by a court empowered for the purpose, which aimed at enforcing fundamental rights and correcting legal wrongs.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Evolution of panchayati raj institutions (pris) in india, leaders in parliament, leader of opposition (lop), judicial review: meaning, scope, significance & more, parliament of india, rajya sabha: composition, system of elections & more, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Featured Post

NEXT IAS (Delhi)

Old rajinder nagar.

• 27-B, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar no.118, Near Karol Bagh Metro, New Delhi-110060

Mukherjee Nagar

• 1422, Main Mukherjee Nagar Road. Near Batra Cinema New Delhi-110009

NEXT IAS (Jaipur)

• NEXT IAS - Plot No - 6 & 7, 3rd Floor, Sree Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Above Zudio Showroom Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302015

NEXT IAS (Prayagraj)

• 31/31, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001

NEXT IAS (Bhopal)

• Plot No. 46 Zone - 2 M.P Nagar Bhopal - 462011
• 8827664612 ,

National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)

The Importance of Article 32: The Right to Constitutional Remedies

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is like a superhero for our rights. It lets us go to the Supreme Court if our fundamental rights are violated. This article is super important because it helps protect our freedoms and ensures justice for everyone.

Key Takeaways

• Article 32 allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly if their fundamental rights are violated.
• It is considered the heart and soul of the Indian Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts can issue various types of writs to enforce fundamental rights.
• Article 32 is unique to the Indian Constitution and has no direct counterpart in many other countries.
• It plays a crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that the government respects individual rights.

Historical Context of Article 32

Origins in the indian freedom struggle.

Article 32 has its roots in the Indian freedom struggle. During the fight for independence, leaders emphasized the need for a legal framework to protect citizens’ rights. This idea was crucial in shaping the Indian Constitution’s Part III, which includes Article 32. Article 32 provides a constitutional guarantee for the enforcement of fundamental rights, making it a cornerstone of Indian democracy.

Influence of British Legal Traditions

The British legal system significantly influenced the drafting of Article 32. The concept of judicial review and the ability to issue writs were borrowed from British law. These elements were integrated into the Indian legal system to ensure that citizens could seek redressal for violations of their fundamental rights. This blend of British legal traditions with Indian needs created a robust mechanism for constitutional remedies.

Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in framing Article 32. He believed that the right to constitutional remedies was the heart and soul of the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar’s vision was to empower citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights, ensuring that justice was accessible to all.

The historical context of Article 32 highlights its significance in the Indian Constitution. It reflects the aspirations of a nation striving for justice and equality, rooted in the experiences of its freedom struggle and influenced by global legal traditions.

Fundamental Rights and Article 32

Interconnection with other fundamental rights.

Article 32 is a unique part of the Indian Constitution. It is not just another legal right but a fundamental right itself. This article allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly if they believe their fundamental rights, as listed in Part III of the Constitution, have been violated. This makes fundamental rights justiciable , meaning they can be enforced through the courts.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation

The Supreme Court has a broad scope under Article 32. It can issue various types of orders, directions, or writs to enforce fundamental rights. This power is not limited by any constraints, making it a powerful tool for protecting citizens’ rights. The Court has used this article to interpret and expand the scope of fundamental rights over the years.

High Courts’ Role under Article 226

While Article 32 deals with the Supreme Court, Article 226 gives similar powers to the High Courts. However, Article 226 is a constitutional right, not a fundamental one. High Courts can issue writs to any person or authority within their jurisdiction, providing another layer of protection for citizens’ rights.

Mechanisms of Constitutional Remedies

Types of writs available.

The Indian Constitution provides several types of writs to protect citizens’ rights. These include:

• Habeas Corpus : This writ demands that a person detained be brought before the court to determine if the detention is lawful.
• Mandamus : This writ orders a public official to perform a duty they are legally obligated to complete.
• Prohibition : This writ stops lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction.
• Certiorari : This writ transfers a case from a lower court to a higher court for review.
• Quo-Warranto : This writ questions the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.

Procedure for Filing a Petition

Filing a petition under Article 32 is a straightforward process. Citizens can approach the Supreme Court directly if they believe their fundamental rights are violated. The steps include:

• Drafting a petition detailing the violation.
• Submitting the petition to the Supreme Court.
• The court reviews the petition and may issue a notice to the respondent.
• A hearing is conducted where both parties present their arguments.
• The court delivers its judgment.

Landmark Cases and Precedents

Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding and application of Article 32. Some notable cases include:

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India : This case expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala : This case established the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India : This case clarified the scope of judicial review in cases of state emergency.

The right to constitutional remedies stands as a pivotal means through which individuals can safeguard their fundamental rights and seek redressal in case of violations. This mechanism ensures that the rule of law is upheld and that citizens have a direct path to justice.

Comparative Analysis with Other Constitutions

United states bill of rights.

The United States Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, guarantees fundamental liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. One key difference is that while the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to constitutional remedies , the judiciary has interpreted various provisions to protect individual rights. The U.S. Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring these rights are upheld.

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. It includes the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and the right to life. The European Court of Human Rights enforces these rights, providing a mechanism for individuals to seek remedies if their rights are violated. This is somewhat similar to Article 32 in India, which allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly.

Constitutional Remedies in Other Democracies

Many other democracies have provisions for constitutional remedies, though the specifics vary. For instance, in South Africa, the Constitution explicitly provides for the right to approach the courts for enforcement of rights. Similarly, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows individuals to seek judicial review if their rights are infringed. These mechanisms ensure that citizens have a way to protect their fundamental rights, much like Article 32 in India.

The right to constitutional remedies is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that citizens can hold the state accountable for violations of their fundamental rights.

Challenges and Criticisms

Judicial overreach concerns.

One major concern is the potential for judicial overreach. When courts interpret laws too broadly, they might step into the roles meant for the legislative or executive branches. This can lead to a balance of power issue, where the judiciary becomes too powerful.

Accessibility for Common Citizens

Another challenge is making Article 32 accessible to everyone. Many people, especially those in rural areas, find it hard to approach the Supreme Court. The process can be expensive and complicated, making it tough for common citizens to seek justice.

Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

Balancing individual rights with societal responsibilities is also tricky. While Article 32 protects fundamental rights, it must also ensure that these rights do not harm the community. This balance is crucial for maintaining social harmony .

Article 32, described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul of the Constitution,” plays a vital role in protecting citizens’ rights. However, it also faces significant challenges that need to be addressed to ensure it serves everyone effectively.

Impact on Indian Democracy

Empowerment of citizens.

Article 32 has played a crucial role in empowering citizens. It allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly if they believe their fundamental rights have been violated. This provision ensures that justice is accessible to everyone, not just those with resources. Empowering individuals to seek redressal for violations of their rights is a cornerstone of a democratic society.

Strengthening Judicial Accountability

The right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 has also strengthened judicial accountability. By providing a mechanism for citizens to challenge the actions of the state, it ensures that the judiciary remains a check on the other branches of government. This accountability is vital for maintaining the balance of power and upholding the rule of law.

Role in Social Justice Movements

Article 32 has been instrumental in various social justice movements in India. It has provided a legal avenue for marginalized groups to fight for their rights. From environmental issues to human rights, the ability to file petitions under Article 32 has been a powerful tool for social change. Embedded within Articles 32 and 226 , these writs serve as the bedrock of justice, empowering individuals to seek redressal for violations of their rights.

The impact of democracy in India is profound and far-reaching. It shapes the way we live, work, and interact with each other. To understand more about how democracy influences our daily lives and the political landscape, visit our website . Dive into detailed articles, expert analyses, and comprehensive resources that will enhance your knowledge and keep you informed.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution stands as a cornerstone for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. It ensures that individuals have the right to approach the Supreme Court directly if they believe their rights have been violated. This provision is vital for maintaining justice and accountability in the country. By empowering citizens to seek remedies, Article 32 upholds the democratic values and principles that are essential for a fair and just society. In essence, it acts as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that the rights enshrined within it are not just theoretical but are actively protected and enforced.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is article 32 of the indian constitution.

Article 32 provides the right to approach the Supreme Court to seek enforcement of fundamental rights. It’s known as the Right to Constitutional Remedies.

Why is Article 32 called the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution?

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution because it ensures that citizens can seek justice if their fundamental rights are violated.

What types of writs can be issued under Article 32?

The Supreme Court can issue five types of writs under Article 32: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.

How does Article 32 relate to other fundamental rights?

Article 32 acts as a guardian of all other fundamental rights. If any of these rights are violated, individuals can seek remedy through Article 32.

Can High Courts also enforce fundamental rights?

Yes, under Article 226, High Courts can also issue writs to enforce fundamental rights, similar to the Supreme Court under Article 32.

What are some landmark cases involving Article 32?

Some landmark cases include Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, and S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, which have shaped the interpretation of Article 32.

Previous Post Mastering UPSC Mains: Converting Knowledge into Answers

Next post education and gender equality: transforming india's future, similar posts, is the ias exam really that tough understanding the challenges of upsc preparation”.

UPSC Preparation: Role of IAS Mock Interviews in Conquering the Exam’s Challenges

Comprehensive guide to the upsc mains 2024 exam pattern, browse our content, information.

• Disclaimer 
• Privacy Policy
• Refund & Cancellation
• General Studies
• Monday – Saturday (10:00 a.m. – 06:00 p.m.)
• [email protected]  
• 1800-890-3043
• Sleepy Edusolutions Private Limited
• GST No.- 03ABDCS3013L1ZN
• Plot No. E-42, Phase 8, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab 160071 

© 2024 Sleepy Classes IAS.

• General Studies 2025
• Sociology 2025
• Political Science & IR 2025
• Political Science & International Relations
• Essay Courses
• Psychological Counselling
• Prelims Courses
• Political Science & IR
• NCERT Batch
• Current Affairs

• Uttar Pradesh PSC Courses
• Jammu & Kashmir PCS Courses
• Punjab PSC Courses
• Bihar PSC Courses
• Haryana PSC Courses
• Himachal Pradesh PSC Courses
• Odisha PSC Courses
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• UPSC Previous Year Papers
• PSIR Optional – Syllabus & PYQs
• Haryana PCS
• Himachal Pradesh PCS
• Jammu & Kashmir PCS
• Uttar Pradesh PCS
• Recommended Books For UPSC
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Our Toppers

Fill the Form to Register

Which Year are You Targeting to Crack the UPSC Exam? —Please choose an option— Preparing for UPSC 2024 Preparing for UPSC 2025 Beyond That Preparing for State PSC

Do You Require Coaching? —Please choose an option— Yes No Joined Sleepy Classes Joined Some Other Coaching

Which Optional are You Preparing For? Sociology Political Science & International Relations Others

Which Year are You Targeting to Crack the UPSC Exam? Preparing for UPSC 2024 Preparing for UPSC 2025 Beyond That Preparing for State PSC

Do You Require Coaching? Yes No Joined Sleepy Classes Joined Some Other Coaching

Fill the Form to Get State PYQs

Which State PCS Are You Preparing For? Select Your State Uttar Pradesh Bihar Punjab Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Other

Do You Require Coaching? Looking for Coaching Preparing by Yourself Already Joined Coaching

Fill Your Details to Register

Fill the form to download your files.

What is Your UPSC Optional —Please choose an option— Sociology Political Science & IR Others

Year of Attempt UPSC 2024 UPSC 2025 Beyond that

Are You Preparing On Your Own? —Please choose an option— Yes No Joined Sleepy Classes Joined Some Other Coaching Looking for Mentorship Only

Fill the Form to Download Your File

Are You Preparing On Your Own? Yes I have already joined Coaching I am looking for Coaching I am looking for Mentorship

Fill Your Details to Register for the IGP 2023

Roll Number

What is Your Optional?

Preferred Mode for Mock Interview —Please choose an option— Online Offline – Delhi Offline – Chandigarh

Marks in Previous Interview (if applicable)

Date of UPSC Interview (if applicable)

Home State & Other States (if any)

Academic Qualifications

Upload DAF-I

Upload DAF-II

Upload Passport-Size Photograph

MAKING LAW SIMPLE!

Understanding Article 32 of Indian Constitution: Right to Constitutional Remedies

Introduction: article 32 of indian constitution.

The Constitution of India guarantees a broad spectrum of fundamental rights to its citizens. Among these rights, Article 32 of the Indian Constitution holds paramount significance as it ensures citizens have access to justice when their fundamental rights are violated. This blog post delves into the essence of Article 32, its provisions, significance, and operational mechanisms.

Widely regarded as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, Article 32 grants citizens the right to move the Supreme Court (and, in some cases, High Courts under Article 226) for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It acts as a formidable safeguard against arbitrary actions by the State that infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights.

Understanding Article 32 of Indian Constitution

Article 32 provides citizens with a crucial legal recourse to seek redressal when their fundamental rights are infringed upon by the State or its agents. It is not merely a procedural right but a substantive one, empowering the Supreme Court to issue writs, orders, or directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights. These writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto, serve as potent tools to ensure the protection of citizens’ rights.

Purpose of Article 32 of Indian Constitution

The primary objective of Article 32 is to serve as a safeguard for citizens against the violation of their fundamental rights. By vesting authority in the Supreme Court to issue writs, Article 32 enables individuals to seek redressal directly from the highest judicial authority, thereby challenging any unlawful action or deprivation of their rights.

Writs Under Article 32 of Indian Constitution

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue various types of writs to safeguard fundamental rights:

• Habeas Corpus: Protects against unlawful detention or imprisonment.
• Mandamus: Commands a public official, corporation, or government authority to perform their duty or refrain from an unlawful action.
• Prohibition: Prevents a lower court or authority from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting unlawfully.
• Certiorari: Quashes an order or decision of a lower court or authority if found illegal or without jurisdiction.
• Quo Warranto: Questions the authority or legality of a person holding a public office.

Significance of Article 32 of Indian Constitution

• Cornerstone of Fundamental Rights: Provides citizens with a powerful tool to seek justice and protection against rights violations.
• Access to Justice: Empowers individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for redressal, ensuring the highest judicial authority adjudicates on fundamental rights issues.
• Balancing Power: Acts as a check on governmental actions, preventing overreach and safeguarding citizens’ rights.
• Preserving Liberty: Crucial safeguard protecting personal liberties and freedoms from undue interference.
• Social Change: Facilitates Public Interest Litigation, allowing individuals or groups to advocate for marginalized sections of society.

Important Case Laws of Article 32 of Indian Constitution

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union Of India & Others: Directed measures to eliminate child labor, emphasizing welfare directives and access to education and health facilities.
• Kharak Singh v. State of UP: Established surveillance limitations, recognizing the right to privacy as integral to personal liberty.
• Premchand v. Excise Commissioner: Established parameters for Supreme Court’s use of Article 142, ensuring consistency with fundamental rights.
• L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India: Established the constitutionality of Articles 32A and 323B, distinguishing between courts of law and tribunals.

Limitations and Challenges: Article 32 of Indian Constitution

National Emergency: Article 32 can be suspended during a national emergency.

Scope of Writs: Limited to enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Accessibility: Financial constraints, lack of awareness, and delays in case disposal hinder accessibility for vulnerable sections.

Conclusion: Article 32 of Indian Constitution

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution stands as a cornerstone in safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights and ensuring access to justice. By understanding and exercising this right, citizens can effectively challenge unconstitutional actions and uphold their liberties and freedoms. It remains imperative for citizens to remain vigilant and utilize Article 32 to protect their rights in a democratic society.

• Vishaka Case Analysis
• Balancing Personal Liberty and Police Investigation
• Breach of Contract and Its Consequences under Indian Contract Act

FAQs: Article 32 of Indian Constitution

Q1. What are the key provisions of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, and how does it safeguard fundamental rights?

Ans: Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution as it acts as a safeguard against any arbitrary action by the State that violates these rights. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs, orders, or directions to enforce fundamental rights, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.

Q2. Can you explain the significance of the Supreme Court writs issued under Article 32 in ensuring access to justice for citizens?

Ans: The writs issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 play a crucial role in ensuring access to justice for citizens. These writs serve as powerful tools to prevent and remedy violations of fundamental rights. For example, a writ of habeas corpus can be filed to seek the release of a person who has been unlawfully detained, while a mandamus directs a public official to perform their duty. These writs uphold the rule of law and hold the government accountable for its actions.

Q3. How do landmark cases like Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others shape the interpretation and enforcement of Article 32 in India’s legal landscape?

Ans: Landmark cases like Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others have significantly influenced the interpretation and enforcement of Article 32. In this case, the Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to eliminate child labor in the carpet industry, highlighting the court’s role in protecting fundamental rights. Such cases set important precedents and shape the legal landscape, reaffirming the importance of Article 32 in safeguarding citizens’ liberties and freedoms.

If You Are A Law Student: CLICK HERE

Related Posts

M.c. mehta vs kamal nath |explained.

In this example, the Supreme Court utilized the ‘Regulation of Public Trust.’ The hypothesis of public trust is an old lawful thought that states that some normal products, like streams, beaches, backwoods, and the air, are held in trust by the public authority for the overall population’s free and unlimited use.

Chapter VI-VIII |Comparison between IPC and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

In contrast to the IPC, which encompasses 23 Chapters housing 511 Sections along with all amendments, the BNS is designed to be more concise, comprising 20 Chapters housing 358 Sections.

REVOCATION OF CONTINUING GUARANTEE

INTRODUCTION According to Section 126 of Indian Contract Act 1872 the ‘Contract of guarantee’ is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default.  There are three parties involved in this transaction-  Surety- The person who gives the guarantee. Principal…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• 275 Share on Instagram
• 254 Share on Facebook
• 250 Share on LinkedIn

• TRP for UPSC Personality Test
• Interview Mentorship Programme – 2023
• Daily News & Analysis
• Daily Current Affairs Quiz
• Baba’s Explainer
• Dedicated TLP Portal
• 60 Day – Rapid Revision (RaRe) Series – 2024
• English Magazines
• Hindi Magazines
• Yojana & Kurukshetra Gist
• All India Prelims Test Series – 2025
• Gurukul Foundation
• Gurukul Foundation – Delhi
• Gurukul Advanced
• TLP Connect – 2025
• TLP (+) Plus – 2025
• Integrated Learning Program (ILP) – 2025
• MAINS PYQs Mastery
• TLP Plus – 2024
• Sociology Foundation Course – 2025
• Sociology Test Series – 2024 (Coming Soon!)
• Public Administration FC – 2024
• Anthropology Foundation Course
• Anthropology Optional Test Series (Coming Soon!)
• Geography Optional Foundation Course
• Geography Optional Test Series – Coming Soon!
• PSIR Foundation Course
• PSIR Test Series – Coming Soon
• KPSC ಪಶುವೈದ್ಯಾಧಿಕಾರಿ (Veterinary Medical Officer – VMO) Exam 2024
• ‘Mission ಸಂಕಲ್ಪ’ – KPSC Foundation Course
• ‘Mission ಸಂಕಲ್ಪ’ – KPSC Prelims Crash Course
• Daily News & Analysis हिन्दी
• Monthly Magazine

Supreme Court interpretation of Article 32 over the years

• November 18, 2020

UPSC Articles

JUDICIARY/ RIGHTS

Topic: General Studies 2: Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary

Context : Recently, Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde observed that it is “trying to discourage” individuals from filing petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

The observation came during the hearing of a petition seeking the release of journalist Siddique Kappan, who was arrested with three others while on their way to Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, to report on an alleged gangrape and murder.

What is Article 32?

• It is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled. 
• Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
• It states that the Supreme Court “shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”
• The Article cannot be suspended except during the period of Emergency.

Significance of Article 32

• The Article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including to Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion. 
• Only if any of these fundamental rights is violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.
• In the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that without article 32 this Constitution would be a nullity. He further said that “It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it”
• Article 32 is one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual.
• Since Article 32 gives a person the right to approach the Supreme Court as a remedy if fundamental rights are violated, “it is a right fundamental to all the fundamental rights ” guaranteed under the Constitution.

Can High Courts be approached in cases of violation of fundamental rights?

• Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court can be approached for violation or enactment of fundamental rights through five kinds of writs
• In civil or criminal matters, the first remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of trial courts, followed by an appeal in the High Court and then the Supreme Court.
• When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. Article 226, however, is not a fundamental right like Article 32.

What have been the Supreme Court’s observations on Article 32?

• In Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950 ), the Supreme Court observed that Article 32 provides a “guaranteed” (SC cannot refuse) remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• During the Emergency, in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vs S S Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court had said that the citizen loses his right to approach the court under Article 32

Recent trends

• In the case of the journalist Siddique Kappan, the court asked why the petitioners could not go to the High Court. It has sought responses from the Centre and the UP government, and will hear the case later this week.
• In another case invoking Article 32, filed by a Nagpur-based man arrested in three cases for alleged defamatory content against Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray and others, the same Bench directed him to approach the High Court first.
• In another matter, three-judge Bench of SC had issued a contempt notice to the Assistant Secretary of the Maharashtra Assembly who, in a letter to Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami, had questioned him for approaching the top court against the breach-of-privilege notice. The court had then said that the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right 
• The above instances have been cited by Citizen Activists to criticize the working of Judiciary where access to Justice at apex level is liable to influence and power.

Constitutional experts say that it is eventually at the discretion of the Supreme Court and each individual judge to decide whether an intervention is warranted in a case, which could also be heard by the High Court first.

Connecting the dots:

• Judicial Reforms: Click here and here

Related Posts :

Additional judges appointed as permanent judges of allahabad hc under article 217, shifting sands for asian economies.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS हिन्दी | UPSC प्रारंभिक एवं मुख्य परीक्षा –11th September 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 11th September 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS हिन्दी | UPSC प्रारंभिक एवं मुख्य परीक्षा –10th September 2024
• UPSC Quiz – 2024 : IASbaba’s Daily Current Affairs Quiz 11th September 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 10th September 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS हिन्दी | UPSC प्रारंभिक एवं मुख्य परीक्षा –9th September 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS हिन्दी | UPSC प्रारंभिक एवं मुख्य परीक्षा –7th September 2024
• UPSC Quiz – 2024 : IASbaba’s Daily Current Affairs Quiz 10th September 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 7th September 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 9th September 2024

Search now.....

Sign up to receive regular updates.

Sign Up Now !

All about Article 32 of the Constitution of India

• Constitutional Law Blogs Subject-wise Law Notes
• May 27, 2021

The Constitution of India has always focussed upon the concept of Fundamental Rights. It has provided the remedies for enforcement of such rights. So, the author intends to give a proper evaluation of the Article 32 and its further validation down the years. Author deals with the conceptual overview and also the related cases. There is substantive interpretation. Insight into concepts such as ‘Right to move the Supreme Court and Writs has been given primary importance. Validity of the provisions in Indian scenario would closely deal in this paper.

Introduction

When the law becomes a weapon of oppression rather than an equalising force, democracy is in danger. Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, and affirms the right of an individual to move the (SC) by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the constitution.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is considered one the most important articles when it comes to the enforcement of the rights of an individual. It gives rights to an individual to seek justice in a court when they feel that their rights have been infringed or ‘unduly deprived’. The SC has the power to execute the rights that have been bestowed upon an individual by the constitution.

Under Article 32, an assured right is guaranteed to persons for the protection of fundamental rights as the statute grants a person the right to immediately reach the Supreme Court without pursuing a longer procedure by going to the lower courts first as the primary object of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 is to enforce fundamental rights. 

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has said, “If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important — an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity —It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it”.

Concept and Purpose of Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived’. The apex court is given the authority to issue directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights bestowed by the constitution as it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights’.

Nature of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Article 32(1): Guarantee to remedy

Article 32(2): Power of Supreme Court (and high courts) to issue writs

Article 32(3): Power of parliament to confer the power to issue writs to other courts (so far this power is not exercised.

Article 32(4): Suspension of Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court which is guardian of the fundamental rights in India has three kinds of jurisdiction: original, appellate & advisory.

Article 32 uses the power of original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by which any person who has a complaint that his / her fundamental right has been violated within the territory of India may move directly to the Supreme Court. He / She may move to the High Court does not imply that he/ she cannot move directly to the Supreme Court. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to any dispute between Government of India and one or more States between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States.

Writs under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

In case of violation of fundamental rights The high court and supreme court can be approached .

  There are five types of writs can be issued in case of violation of fundamental rights, they are: 

• Habeas Corpus : This means that ‘produce the body’, the main purpose of this writ is to claim against the unlawful detention of an individual. The purpose of it is to protect an individual from unlawful harm caused by the administrative system.

A criminal who is convicted has the right to seek the assistance of the court by filing an application for “writ of Habeas Corpus” if he believes that he has been wrongfully imprisoned and the conditions in which he has been held falls below minimum legal standards for human treatment. 

The first Habeas Corpus case of India was that in Kerala where it was filed by the victims’ father as the victim P. Rajan who was a college student was arrested by the Kerala police and being unable to bear the torture he died in police custody. So, his father Mr T.V. Eachara Warrier filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and it was proved that he died in police custody.

Narayan v. Ishwarlal [1]

In this case it was heldthat the court would rely on the way of the procedures in which the locale has been executed.

  ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla  [1] which is also known as the Habeas Corpus case, it was held that the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended even during the emergency (Article 359

• Quo Warranto: It means ‘By what means’. This writ shall be invoked in public service cases and shall be given to preclude people to whom he is not entitled from participating in public office.

In the case of  Ashok Pandey v. Mayawati [2] , the writ of Quo Warranto was refused against Ms Mayawati (CM) and other ministers of her cabinet even though they were Rajya Sabha members.

Then in the case of  G.D. Karkare v. T.L. Shevde [3] , the High Court of Nagpur observed that “In proceedings for a writ of quo warranto, the applicant does not seek to enforce any right of his as such nor does he complain of any non-performance of duty towards him. What is in question is the right of the non-applicant to hold the office and an order that is passed is an order ousting him from that office.”

• Mandamus: It literally means ‘We Command’. This writ is provided for the proper execution of compulsory and exclusively ministerial duties and is issued to a lower court or government official by a superior court.

In  Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board [4] , it was held that in relation to Fundamental Rights the availability of alternative remedy cannot be an absolute bar for the issue of writ though the fact may be taken into consideration.

Then, in the case of  Manjula Manjori v. Director of Public Instruction , the publisher of a book had applied for the writ of mandamus against the Director of Public Instruction for the inclusion of his book in the list of books which were approved as text-books in schools. But the writ was not allowed as the matter was completely within the discretion of D.I.P and he was not bound to approve the book.

• Certiorari: It literally means to be certified. It is provided where the power is wrongfully exercised and the judgment of the case is focused on it.

In  Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. , the Supreme Court has explained the meaning, ambit and scope of the writ of Certiorari. Also, in this it was explained that Certiorari is always available against inferior courts and not against equal or higher court, i.e., it cannot be issued by a High Court against any High Court or benches much less to the Supreme Court and any of its benches.

In the case of  T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Anr. [5] , it was held by the constitution bench that certiorari maybe and is generally granted when a court has acted (i) without jurisdiction or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction.

• Prohibition : That is a writ that orders a lower court to avoid doing anything that the statute forbids it to do. The primary aim is to prohibit an inferior court from violating its authority or behaving in violation of the provisions of Natural Justice.

In the case of  East India Commercial Co. Ltd v. Collector of Customs   [6] , a writ of prohibition was passed directing an inferior Tribunal prohibiting it from continuing with the proceeding on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or in contradiction with the laws of the land, statutes or otherwise.

In the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd [7] , the Supreme Court pointed out that where an inferior tribunal is shown to have seized jurisdiction which does not belong to it then that consideration is irrelevant and the writ of Prohibition has to be issued as a right.

Analysis of Article 32 of the Constitution of India

When a crime is committed against a person or a person is infringed of his fundamental rights, the victim loses a lot apart from incurring damages and injuries. The work of the judiciary should not only be to punish the guilty but also to compensate the victim as even if the accused is punished, the victim’s loss is not compensated. It is not like that the victims of crime can never ask for the compensation as such a prayer is available under the civil laws, but filing two different suits for the same offence in two different courts. This may lead to further traumatisation to the victims.

The idea behind awarding monetary compensation to the victims of crime or the victims of state lawlessness is both legal as well as humanitarian. If the state is unable to protect the individual’s rights, then the state is under legal obligation to compensate him. Many times the victim passes through many hardships, pain and many times the result is the permanent loss of the source of income, which makes it sensible and logical for him to be compensated.

In the Indian culture of the 21st century, many individuals need their ladies to be “unadulterated” or pure virgins. A victim of rape in such cases not just loses out the chance to wed into an otherwise decent family but is segregated upon for no blame of hers. It is said that the most priced possession of a lady is her dignity and respect. In the general public where individuals still have an old mentality, the life of such a lady only degrades. It just bodes well to compensate such a victim well apart from punishing the accused. Mental shock, loss of income and cost of litigation should be taken into consideration when coming out with compensation and the Courts should hence compensate the victims more frequently

Amendments to Article 32

‘Anti-freedom’ clauses were included in Article 32 by the 42nd Amendment. Such an amendment was made during the time of emergency when it was passed to reduce ‘both directly and indirectly’ the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to review the application of fundamental rights. Then 43rd amendment of the Indian Constitution was passed which repealed Article 32A immediately after the emergency was revoked. Following the amendment, the Supreme Court again gained the power to quash the state laws. Also, the High Courts got the power to question the constitutional validity of central laws.

Limitations to Article 32 of the Constitution of India

• Under Article 33, the Parliament is empowered to make changes in the application of Fundamental Rights to armed forces and the police are empowered with the duty to ensure proper discharge of their duties.
• During the operation of Martial law in any area, any person may be indemnified by the Parliament, if such person is in service of the state or central government for the acts of maintenance or restoration of law and order under Article 34.
• Under Article 352- when an emergency is proclaimed, the guaranteed Fundamental Rights of the citizens remains suspended. Also, Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 is restricted by the Parliament under Article 358 during the pendency of an emergency.
• Article 359 confers the power to the President to suspend Article 32 of the Constitution. The order is to be submitted to the Parliament and the Parliament may disapprove President’s order.

We arrive at the conclusion that compensation isn’t just required yet it is in reality a critical part of even criminal law and the courts ought not to utilize this sparingly but rather a little generously. Of course they ought to be cautious of not granting too high a compensation and consequently ought to be careful.

Article 32 has allowed wide powers to the Supreme Court to protect the essential privileges of Indians, and as I would see it is a standout amongst the most liberal article in the constitution of India. In spite of the fact that our constitution ensures fundamental rights, they are regularly alluded to as unfundamental. The reason is that our justice system is diverting, bulky, moderate and costly. Infringement of major rights frequently goes unreported due to the sheer measure of time and cash one needs to spend to get justice. This is the reason instead of looking for lawful review individuals regularly disregard the encroachment of their essential rights. What’s more, this is presumably one of the most grounded reasons why laudable damages and compensation ought to be granted.

The Judicial activism in such manner to uphold and to guarantee that basic rights stay crucial is an appreciated advance. The pattern is plainly heading towards the correct bearing. It will be interesting to perceive how judiciary, by using its dynamism, makes the machinery smoother, legitimate and just.

[1] AIR 1965 SC 1818

[2] AIR 2007 SC 2259

[3] AIR 1952 Nag. 333.

[4] AIR 1952 Orissa 344

[5] 1954 AIR 240

[6] 1962 AIR 1893

[7] AIR 1955 SC 661

Author: Surbhi Kumari (Amity Law School, Patna)

You might like

Types of Asylum in International Law

Cyber Crime in the Banking Sector

Full Bench Formula in Labour Law

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

Post Comment

• Insights IAS Brochure |
• OUR CENTERS Bangalore Delhi Lucknow Mysuru --> Srinagar Dharwad Hyderabad

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2025
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude
• Insights IAS Brochure

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

• How to Study Art & Culture?
• What is Art and Culture? What is the difference between the two?
• Indus Civilization
• Evolution of rock-cut architecture in India
• Important rock-cut caves
• The contribution of Pallavas to Rock-cut architecture
• Comparision of art form found at Ellora and Mahabalipuram
• Buddhist Architecture
• Early Temples in India
• Basic form of Hindu temple
• Dravida style of temple architecture
• Nagara Style or North India Temple style
• Vesara style of temple architecture
• Characteristic features of Indo-Islamic form of architecture
• Styles of Islamic architecture in the Indian subcontinent
• Types of buildings in Islamic architecture in the Indian subcontinent
• Evolution of this form of architecture during the medieval period
• Modern Architecture
• Post-Independence architecture
• Indus Civilization Sculpture
• Bharhut Sculptures
• Sanchi Sculptures
• Gandhara School of Sculpture
• Mathura School of Sculpture
• Amaravati School of Sculpture
• Gupta Sculpture
• Medieval School of Sculpture
• Modern Indian Sculpture
• Pre Historic Painting
• Mural Paintings & Cave Paintings
• Pala School
• Mughal Paintings
• Bundi School of Painting
• Malwa School
• Mewar School
• Basohli School
• Kangra School
• Decanni School of Painting
• Madhubani Paintings or Mithila paintings
• Pattachitra
• Kalighat Painting
• Modern Indian Paintings
• Personalities Associated to Paintings
• Christianity
• Zoroastrianism
• Six Schools of Philosophy
• Lokayata / Charvaka
• Hindustani Music
• Carnatic Music
• Folk Music Tradition
• Modern Music
• Personalities associated with Music
• Bharatanatyam
• Mohiniattam
• Folk Dances
• Modern Dance in India
• Sanskrit Theatre
• Folk Theatre
• Modern Theatre
• Personalities associated with Theatre
• History of Puppetry
• String Puppetry
• Shadow Puppetry
• Rod Puppetry
• Glove Puppetry
• Indian Cinema and Circus
• Shankaracharya
• Ramanujacharya (1017-1137AD)
• Madhvacharya
• Vallabhacharya
• Kabir (1440-1510 AD)
• Guru Nanak (1469-1538 AD)
• Chaitanya Mahaprabhu
• Shankar Dev
• Purandaradasa
• Samard Ramdas
• Classical Languages
• Scheduled Languages
• Literature in Ancient India
• Buddhist and Jain Literature
• Tamil (Sangam) Literature
• Malayalam Literature
• Telugu Literature
• Medieval Literature
• Modern Literature
• Important characteristics of Fairs and Festivals of India
• Some of the major festivals that are celebrated in India
• Art & Crafts
• Ancient Science & Technology
• Medieval Science & Technology
• Famous Personalities in Science & Technology
• Tangible Cultural Heritage
• Intangible Cultural Heritage
• Cultural Heritage Sites
• Natural Heritage Sites
• Important Institutions
• Important programmes related to promotion and preservation of Indian heritage
• Ochre Colored Pottery (OCP)
• Black and Red Ware (BRW)
• Painted Grey-Ware (PGW)
• Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW)
• Origin of Martial arts in India
• Various forms of Martial arts in India
• Company Rule (1773-1858)
• GOI act 1858
• Indian Councils Act (1861, 1892)
• Minto-Morley Reforms, 1909
• Government of India Act of 1919
• Government of India Act of 1935
• Indian Independence Act of 1947
• Constituent Assembly
• Salient features of Indian Constitution
• Amendments of the Constitution
• Basic Structure Doctrine
• Characteristic features of fundamental rights
• Rights to equality
• Rights to freedom
• Right against exploitation
• Right to freedom of religion
• Culture and educational rights

Right to constitutional remedies

• Armed forces and FR
• Martial law and FR
• Effecting certain fundamental rights
• Exceptions to FR
• Significance of FR
• Criticisms of FRs
• Features of DPSP:
• Classification of DPSPs
• Criticism of DPSPs
• Implementation of DPSPs
• Conflict between DPSPs and FRs
• Fundamental Duties
• National Emergency
• President’s rule
• Financial emergency
• Criticism of emergency provisions
• 7th Schedule
• Federal System of government
• Federal system of India- federalism with tilt towards centre
• Cooperative federalism
• Competitive Federalism
• Legislative Relations
• Administrative Relations
• Financial Relations
• GST Council (Centre state relations)
• Important Recommends on Centre-state relations
• Inter-state water disputes
• Inter-State Council
• Inter-state trade and commerce
• Zonal Councils
• Governors Role
• Commissions on Centre state relations
• NITI Aayog (issue and challenges)
• Evolution of Panchayati Raj
• Constitutionalisation of PRI
• Compulsory and voluntary provisions of the act
• PESA act, 1996
• Historical perspective of local bodies in India
• Salient features of 74th amendment act
• Types of urban governments in India
• Significance of ULB
• Present status of urban local bodies
• Challenges faced by ULBs
• Measures required in addressing these challenges
• Finance Commission (Devolution of Power)
• Evolution of devolution of powers and finances
• Special Provisions to some states
• Doctrine of Separation of Power
• Constitutional Status of Separation of Power in India
• Few Judiciary decisions which upheld the Separation of Powers Doctrine
• Comparison of Separation of Powers in USA
• Judiciary – SC, HC
• Tribunals SC,HC
• Election commission (Dispute Redressal Mechanisms and Institutions)
• NITI Aayog (Dispute Redressal)
• Borrowed features
• Presidential vs parliamentary form of government
• Comparison with countries – USA, UK, French, Canada etc
• Functioning
• Conduct of Business
• Powers & Privileges
• Role of speaker
• Leader of opposition
• Anti-Defection law
• Criminalisation of politics
• Union: President, PM, Council of Ministers, Cabinet, Cabinet Committees, Cabinet Secretariat
• State: Governor, Chief Minister, State Council of Ministers
• Appointment of judges
• Evolution of collegium system
• Qualification, Oath, Tenure and Salary of judges
• Acting Chief Justice
• Seat of the Supreme Court
• Ad hoc judges and retired judges of Supreme Court
• Independence of the Supreme Court
• Jurisdictions and powers of Supreme Court
• Sub-ordinate courts
• Independence of Judiciary
• Judicial review
• Judicial activism and Judicial Over-reach
• Cabinet Ministries
• Other Important ministries
• Characteristics of Pressure Groups
• Types of Pressure Groups (Polity)
• Functions, Role & Importance of Pressure Groups
• Techniques/Methods applied by Pressure Groups
• Pressure Groups in India
• Challenges faced by Pressure Groups
• Recent amendments to RP act
• Electoral reforms
• Political parties
• Election and Election laws
• Election Commission
• GST Council
• UPSC (Polity)
• State Public Service Commission
• Finance Commission (App)
• National Commission for SCs
• National Commission for STs
• National Commission for BCs
• Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities
• Comptroller and Auditor General of India
• Attorney General of India
• Advocate General of the State
• Tribunals – CAT, SAT
• NITI Aayog (Statutory)
• National Human Rights Commission
• Central Information Commission
• State Information Commission
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Central Bureau of Investigation
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas
• National Commission for Women
• National Commission for Minorities
• National Disaster Management Authority
• National Investigation Agency
• Central Pollution Control Board
• National Green Tribunal
• Competition Appellate Tribunal

Home » Indian Polity » Indian Constitution » Significant Provisions » Fundamental Rights » Fundamental rights (Articles 12-35) » Right to constitutional remedies

Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies

• Most important part of the Fundamental Rights
• Parliament can empower any other court to issue directions, orders and writs of all kinds
• President can suspend the enforcement of Fundamental rights during a national emergency (article 359)
• Article 32 can be invoked in only those cases where there is violation of FR
• Before 1950, only high court of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta could issue writs.
• Idea borrowed from British
• Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court is narrower
• Territorial jurisdiction of SC is much greater than HC
• SC is the defender and guarantor of fundamental rights

Habeas Corpus

• Tool of individual liberty against arbitrary detention
• Can be issued against both public and private individuals
• The writ cannot be issued in following cases:
• Detention is lawful
• Proceedings is for contempt of legislature or court
• Detention is by a competent court
• Detention is outside court jurisdiction
• Demanding a public official to perform a duty which he has failed to perform
• Can be issued against an inferior court also
• Cannot be issued against a private individual or body. To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force; when the duty is discretionary; to enforce a contractual obligation; against President of governor; against CJI of a high court acting in judicial capacity

Prohibition

• It means ‘to forbid’
• Issued by a higher court to a lower court
• To prevent exceeding jurisdiction
• Only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies
• Not available against administrative authorities, legislative bodies and private individuals or bodies
• Much like above but it is curative as well
• Available against administrative authorities as well

Quo-Warranto

• To adjudicate the legality of a claim of a person to public office
• It can be issued against public office of substantive character
• Cannot be issued against ministerial or private office
• Any interested person can seek the application of this

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

ARTICLE 32: RIGHT TO CONSTITUTION REMEDIES

• Post author: Team LawFoyer
• Post published: 1 September 2024
• Post category: Articles / Constitutional Law
• Reading time: 19 mins read

Author: Dhanavel B, B.A.LL.B., Government Law College Dharmapuri

INTRODUCTION

“An article without which this Constitution would be a nullity – I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it” [1] – B.R. Ambedkar.

Fundamental rights are the outcome of the struggles that our people suffered during the colonial period under British rule. Our people did not have a right to speak, the right to form an association, the right to equality, and so on. Even our people did not have a guardian to look over their limited rights provided by the British. All the suffering and pain of the colonial period shaped our constitution. Various fundamental rights are provided by the Indian constitution to the people of India. Though there are different fundamental rights available in the Constitution, the right to constitutional remedy is a significant provision. Because it is a guardian provision for all other fundamental rights, it provides a constitutional obligation to the Supreme Court of India to provide constitutional remedies for safeguarding the fundamental rights that are provided by the Indian constitution.

Keywords (Minimum 5) : enforcement of fundamental rights, writ of habeas corpus, writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, writ of quo warrant, writ of certiorari, appropriate proceedings, suspension of fundamental rights

LEGAL PROVISION

Article 32 of the Constitution of India – “ Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution [2] ”.

INSTRUMENTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Writ of Habeas Corpus  

Indian constitution says, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law” [3] . Illegal detention of a person is a direct violation of personal liberty. So, any detention or confinement should be according to the procedure which is established by the law. Confinement not only covers physical confinement but also covers control and custody over the person. The apex court has the power to enquire into the matter of confinement whether it is legal or illegal. If it finds the detention is not according to the procedure, it can declare the detention illegal and immediately order to release of such person. The literal meaning of the Latin term Habeas Corpus is, “You should have the body” [4] . This writ empowers the Supreme Court to safeguard the person physically. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration [5] held that “any interested person can file a writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of the denied person”. Unlawful detention is not an essential part of the writ petition before it is disposed of by the court. When the court found prima facie in the writ petition. It issues a rule nisi for show cause for detention by the person who detained a person. If the court finds illegality in the cause, it orders to release the person immediately. The Supreme Court has absolute power to issue a writ of Habeas corpus against any person who kept the aggrieved person in his custody to show cause for detention and further, it can order to release him if it finds illegality in the detention [6] .

Writ of Mandamus 

The Supreme Court can compel any subordinate court, tribunal, public authority, government, and anybody to do any act or restrain from doing any act of a public nature which is legally entitled to do or legally not entitled to do. It’s a form of command. The term Mandamus means, “we command” [7] . Under this writ, the Supreme Court has the power to compel any administrative authority if he must act in a public nature. In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Sunder Lal Jain & Anr [8] , the Supreme Court held that “the petitioner of this writ should have the right to compel the authority to perform his duty towards him”. Furthermore, he may have legal interests or his rights are in imminent danger of being invaded [9] . Importantly, the right to compel should be provided to him by statute not by a contract. So, a writ of mandamus cannot be invoked to compel the performance of contractual liability. Before invoking the writ of mandamus, the concerned authority should refuse to perform his legal duty of a public nature towards the aggrieved person. Further, observing the case of Manjula Manjari Dei v. M.C. Pradhan, Director of Public Instruction [10] , a writ of mandamus cannot be invoked in matters of a discretionary nature. In the above case, a writ of mandamus was filled to compel the Director of Public Instruction to select the petitioner’s book for schools. The court refused the writ because selecting books for schools is at the discretion of the Director of Public Instruction.  

Writ of Prohibition 

Writ of Prohibition is a preventive remedy. This writ can be invoked by the person against any judicial and quasi-judicial bodies for restraining such bodies from what they are about to do. The main condition for a writ of prohibition is that an alleged judicial or quasi-judicial body is about to do an act without jurisdiction. This writ cannot be invoked against an executive body. If a judicial or quasi-judicial body acts partly within the jurisdiction and partly outside the jurisdiction, the Writ of Prohibition will lie in the part of the act that is acted by it without the jurisdiction. Once a judicial or quasi-judicial body pronounces its decision over the matter which is decided by it without jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition cannot be invoked against such judicial or quasi-judicial body. Further in the case of Prudential Capital Markets Ltd v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others [11] , the court held once the order was executed, the writ of prohibition could not be invoked.  

Writ of Quo Warranto

This writ empowers the citizens to question the person’s appointment in an office of a public nature. It protects the office of a public nature from the person’s employment by force or any illegal manner. Latin term Quo Warranto means, “by what warrant (or authority)” [12] . When the writ of Quo Warranto is invoked by the person, the court calls the person who is against the writ filed to show in what authority he holds the alleged office. If the court finds he holds such office of a public nature illegally, it orders the person to leave his office immediately. Public office means the office in which the general public interests exist. Writ of Quo Warranto will not invoke against any office of private nature. It only can be invoked against public offices. In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. D. Ram [13] , the petitioner filed a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of members of the working committee of a private religious association. The court refused the writ on the grounds of appointment in the office of a private nature. There is no limitation period for filing this writ petition in the Supreme Court because the cause of action arises every day on how long the alleged person holds the office. Further, the petitioner need not have a specific interest in the alleged office. The main point to decide in this writ is whether the person holding public office legally or illegally.

Writ of Certiorari  

The Supreme Court can call the records of proceedings from the subordinate courts and tribunals. If it finds any illegality, it will quash it. The Writ of Certiorari is the correctional remedy. The Supreme Court held in the case of Gulab Singh and Ors v. Collector of Farrukhabad and Ors [14] that “the writ of certiorari can issue against any legal authority who must act judiciary to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects”. Judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies who fulfil the above conditions come under the ambit of that writ. Majorly there are three grounds to issue the writ of certiorari, The first one is want or excess of jurisdiction, in this ground the said writ is issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction of judicial or quasi-judicial functioning bodies. Errors of the jurisdiction include the ultra vires acts of legal authority, exercising powers without fulfilling the conditions of the law, acquiring jurisdiction from unconstitutional statutes, exercising powers for an improper purpose, acting under bad faith, and so on. The second one is a violation of the principles of natural justice, the rule of audi alterm partem which means listen to the other side and the doctrine of bias comes under the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court can issue the writ of certiorari against the decisions of judicial or quasi-judicial bodies if there are no opportunities given to the parties to defend their cases or if the decision is arrived at by legal authority by the influence of bias. In the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr [15] , the court held that the objection against the policy of the particular department heard by the Secretary of the same department was biased. So, it violates the principles of natural justice. The third one is the error of law. The Supreme Court can correct the error of law apparent on the face of the record of legal authority. The function of a writ of certiorari quash the order of the legal authority and not to substitute a new order in its place. Because the Supreme Court acts as supervisory authority not as appellate authority under that writ.

• Exclusive Power of Supreme Court –

 As per article 32(2), the Supreme Court can issue writs “including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari”. Five writs mentioned in article 32(2) are inclusive. So, article 32 does not restrict the Supreme Court only to issue writs mentioned in that article. The Supreme Court held that “the Courts should abandon the laissez-faire approach in the judicial process particularly where it involves a question of enforcement of fundamental rights and forge new tools, devise new methods and adopt new strategies to make fundamental rights meaningful for the large masses of people. And this is permissible in the language of clause (2) of Article 32” [16] . Further, the apex court extended the scope of Locus Standi to allow any public-spirited person to approach the court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the needy people. The term Locus Standi means, “the right or ability to bring a legal action to a court of law, or to appear in a court” [17] . The Supreme Court can give extraordinary remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. The Supreme Court is empowered to provide compensation for the violation of fundamental rights. It not only has the power to issue writs but also it has the power to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights. So, the Supreme Court’s power to provide constitutional remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights is not limited, it can go to any extent to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

• Manner Of Approach The Supreme Court

Approaching the Supreme Court for constitutional remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights should be done by appropriate proceedings as per Article 32(1). The Supreme Court follows a liberal interpretation of the term “appropriate proceedings”. In any manner, the aggrieved person can approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights. Prescribing the hardened proceedings will cause restrictions on poor, disabled people, and ignorant people. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Others [18] , The Supreme Court ruled that “the letter of the aggrieved person sent to the court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights regarded as an appropriate proceeding”. Even The Supreme Court accepted postcards and telegrams addressed to any judges of the court regarding enforcement of the fundamental rights as appropriate proceeding [19] . Usually, the Supreme Court considers the appropriate proceedings based on the main purpose of proceedings which is enforcement of fundamental rights. Whenever fundamental rights are invaded by the acts of the administrative or legislature, the Supreme Court is empowered to provide appropriate remedies.

• Constitutional Obligation Of The Supreme Court       

In the matter of enforcement of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to provide remedies. There is no condition for the Aggrieved person to approach the High Court first and, afterwards approach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram-Oleum Gas) [20] , ruled that the petitioner need not approach the High Court very first before approaching the Supreme Court. Due to the pending cases in the Supreme Court, aggrieved persons should approach the high court first if there is an effective remedy available there. If there is no effective remedy available, the aggrieved person can approach the Supreme Court directly. The right to enforce fundamental rights under Article 32 is a fundamental right of an aggrieved person but the right to enforce fundamental rights under Article 226 is a constitutional right. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the constitutional obligation to provide constitutional remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of citizens. Notably, The Supreme Court does not entertain petitions under Article 32, if the matter has already been decided on merit by the high court. Because the rule of Res Judicata bars the Supreme Court from reopening the matter again [21] . But if the petition was dismissed not on merit by the high court then there is no bar to entertain the petition under Article 32 [22] . The Term Res Judicata denotes, “a matter finally decided on its merits by a court having competent jurisdiction and not subject to litigation again between the same parties” [23] .

• SUSPENSION OF ARTICLE 32

Article 32(4) provides the right to enforce fundamental rights only be suspended according to the provision of the constitution. Article 359 suspends the enforcement of fundamental rights by the courts during an emergency which is declared by the President under Article 352. In the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla [24] , the Supreme Court held the right to constitutional remedies provided by Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights is suspended during the national emergency as per Article 359. But later, article 359 was amended by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act 1978. This amendment act excluded Article 20 and Article 21 from the ambit of Article 359. Currently, all fundamental rights shall be suspended during a national emergency but the protection in respect of conviction for offences under Article 20 and protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 shall not suspended.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Providing the right to constitutional remedies as the fundamental right to citizens clearly expresses how the makers of our Constitution decide to secure all fundamental rights from encroachment. Supreme Court acts very well to protect fundamental rights. It issues writs to secure fundamental rights and even provide compensation to aggrieved persons under Article 32. Further, it extends the scope of locus standi to allow public-spirited persons to fight for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of others. All the previous decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the enforcement of fundamental rights clearly show the Supreme Court is always right to break any barrier for the enforcement of fundamental rights as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens.

• Cambridge Dictionary, locus standi, English meaning – Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/locus-standi (last visited Aug 4, 2024).
• Definition of habeas corpus, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/habeas%20corpus (last visited Aug 3, 2024).
• Definition of res judicata, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/res%20judicata (last visited Aug 4, 2024).
• LII, quo warranto, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto (last visited Aug 3, 2024).
• mandamus, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mandamus (last visited Aug 3, 2024).
• Cases Referred
• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, 1976 SCR 172.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 67.
• Daryao And others vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1962 SCR (1) 574.
• Forward Construction Co. & ors. Etc. Etc vs Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & ors, 1986 AIR 391.
• Gulab Singh and Ors v. Collector of Farrukhabad and Ors, AIR 1953 ALL 585.
• Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr, 1959 AIR 308.
• Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. D. Ram, AIR 1954 PATNA 297.
• C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram-Oleum Gas), (1987) 1 SCC 395.
• Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs Union of India and Anr, 1969 SCR (3) 254.
• Manjula Manjari Dei v. M.C. Pradhan, Director of Public Instruction, AIR 1952 ORI 344.
• Mohan Lal Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, (1989) 2 SCC 600.
• Ikram Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 1964 SCR (5) 86.
• Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Sunder Lal Jain & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 280.
• Prudential Capital Markets Ltd v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2000 (5) ALT 468.
• Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, 1980 SCR (2) 557.
• Constitution of India

[1] Words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, 953.

[2] India Const. art. 32.

[3] India Const. art. 21.

[4] Definition of habeas corpus, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/habeas%20corpus (last visited Aug 3, 2024).

[5] 1980 SCR (2) 557.

[6] Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 1964 SCR (5) 86.

[7] mandamus, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mandamus (last visited Aug 3, 2024).

[8] (2008) 2 SCC 280.

[9] Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs Union of India and Anr, 1969 SCR (3) 254.

[10] AIR 1952 ORI 344.

[11] 2000 (5) ALT 468.

[12] LII, quo warranto, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto (last visited Aug 3, 2024).

[13] AIR 1954 PATNA 297.

[14] AIR 1953 ALL 585.

[15] 1959 AIR 308.

[16] Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 67.

[17] Cambridge Dictionary, locus standi, English meaning – Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/locus-standi (last visited Aug 4, 2024).

[18] 1984 SCR (2) 67.

[19] Mohan Lal Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, (1989) 2 SCC 600.

[20] (1987) 1 SCC 395.

[21] Forward Construction Co. & ors. Etc. Etc vs Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & ors, 1986 AIR 391.

[22] Daryao And others vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1962 SCR (1) 574.

[23] Definition of res judicata, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/res%20judicata (last visited Aug 4, 2024).

[24] 1976 SCR 172.

You Might Also Like

Principles of Natural Justice and Administrative Law

Legal remedies for trespass to person, ordinance promulgation power of the president under article 123.

• Journal Website
• Call For Papers
• Volume 1 Issue 2
• Submit Assignment
• Join our team
• Write for us
• Case Analysis
• Legal Drafts
• 20th Edition Harvard Blue Book
• Submit Event
• Quiz Competitions
• Call for Papers
• Courses & Workshops
• Essay Competitions
• MUNs, Youth Parliament & Other Competitions
• Apply For Internship
• Internship Reviews
• Verify Internship Certificate
• About LawFoyer

• Submit Articles
• Lawyers Registration

File your Caveat in Supreme Court INSTANTLY

• Legal Advice
• Lawyers Search
• lawyers in India
• Law of Wills
• Cheque bounce
• Medico Legal
• Transfer of Petition
• Supreme Court
• File Caveat
• Lawyers Forum
• Immigration Law
• Contract laws
• law Library
• Disability laws

Constitutional philosophy of Writs: A detailed analysis

Author name:   ramanjeet, the constitution of india, under articles 32 and 226 confers writ jurisdiction on supreme court and high courts, respectively for enforcement/protection of fundamental rights of an individual..

A person whose right is infringed by an arbitrary administrative action may approach the Court for appropriate remedy. The Constitution of India, under Articles 32 and 226 confers writ jurisdiction on Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively for enforcement/protection of fundamental rights of an Individual. Writ is an instrument or order of the Court by which the Court (Supreme Court or High Courts) directs an Individual or official or an authority to do an act or abstain from doing an act. Article 32(2) of the Constitution of India provides:’’ The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of rights conferred by this Part.” Article 32 is a fundamental right under Part -III of the Constitution. Under this Article, the Supreme Court is empowered to relax the traditional rule of Locus Standi and allow the public interest litigation (PIL) at the instance of public-spirited citizens. The Supreme Court can provide relief to various types of litigants such as bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, victims of police torture etc. The Supreme Court may also award exemplary damages by exercising its power under Article 32 as it has imposed in Bhim Singh’s and Rudul Shah’s cases. Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India, on the other hand says,” Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.” As is clear from the bare language, this Article guarantees an individual to move the High Court for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as for any other purpose also i.e. for enforcement of any other legal right. Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts. It serves as a big reservoir of judicial power to control administration. Its power under Article 226 cannot be curtailed by legislation. Thus powers of High Courts conferred under Article 226 are wider as compared to powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Both the Articles 32 and 226 provide five types of writs namely writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto. These are known as prerogative writs in English Law because they had originated in the King’s prerogative power of superintendence over the due observance of law by his officers and tribunals. The prerogative writs are extra-ordinary remedies intended to be applied in exceptional cases in which ordinary legal remedies are not adequate. Now, let us discuss the prerogative writs in detail:

A) Writ of Habeas Corpus:-

The expression “Habeas Corpus” is a Latin term which means ‘to have the body’. If a person is detained unlawfully, his relatives or friends or any person can move the Court by filing an application under Article 226 in High Court or under Article 32 in Supreme Court for the writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court on being satisfied with the contents of the application, issues the writ. This writ is in the nature of an order calling upon the person who has detained another to produce the latter before the Court, in 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 the confinement. The Court may also award exemplary damages. In Bhim Singh Vs State of Jammu& Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494, the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded the exemplary damages of Rs.50,000/-(At that time this was a very significant amount). An application for habeas corpus can be made by any person on the behalf of the prisoner/detenu as well as the prisoner/detenu himself. Even a letter to the judge mentioning illegalities committed on prisoners in jail can be admitted. In Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration , AIR 1980 SC 1579, a convict had written a letter to one of the Judges of the Supreme Court alleging inhuman torture to a fellow convict. The late justice Krishna Iyer treated this letter as a petition of habeas corpus and passed appropriate orders. Courts can also act suo motu in the interests of justice on any information received by it from any quarter/source. The general principle is that a person illegally detained in confinement without legal proceedings is entitled to seek the remedy of habeas corpus. However, the writ of habeas corpus is not issued in the following cases: (i) Where the person against whom the writ is issued or the person who is detained is not within the jurisdiction of the Court. (ii) To secure the release of a person who has been imprisoned by a Court of law on a criminal charge. (iii) To interfere with a proceeding for contempt by a Court of record or by Parliament. Thus writ of habeas corpus is a bulwark of personal liberty. I has been described as “a great constitutional privilege” or “ first security of civil liberty”. The most characteristic element of the writ is its peremptoriness i.e. a speedy and effective remedy for having the legality of detention of the person enquired and determined by the Court.

B) Mandamus:-

The expression ‘Mandamus’ is a Latin term which means “ We Command”. Mandamus is a Judicial order issued in the form of a command to any Constitutional, Statutory or Non-Statutory authority asking to carry out a public duty imposed by law or to refrain from doing a particular act, which the authority is not entitled to do under the law. It is an important writ to check arbitrariness of an administrative action. It is also called ‘Writ of Justice’ Mandamus demands some kind of activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Thus, when a body omits to decide a matter which it is bound to decide, it can be commanded to decide the same. Where the Government denies to itself a jurisdiction which it has under the law or where an authority vested with the power improperly refuses to exercise it, mandamus can be issued. Thus, mandamus will not be issued unless the applicant has a legal right to the performance of legal duty of a public nature and the party against whom the writ is sought is bound to perform that duty. The rule of Locus Standi is strictly followed in while issuing writ of mandamus. The petitioner has to prove that he has a right to enforce public duty in his favour. The petitioner can approach the High Court or Supreme Court for issuing the writ of mandamus on the following grounds:- (i) Error of jurisdiction; (a) Lack of jurisdiction (b) Excess of jurisdiction (ii) Jurisdictional facts; (iii) Violation of the principles of natural justice i.e. principles of Rule against bias and Rule of Audi alterem partem; (iv) Error of law apparent on the face of record (v) Abuse of jurisdiction It is a discretionary remedy and the High Court may refuse to grant mandamus where an alternative remedy is available for the redressal of the injury complained of. In the matter of enforcement of fundamental rights, however, the question of alternative remedy does not weigh so much with the Court since it is the duty of the High Court or the Supreme Court to enforce the fundamental rights. In India, mandamus will lie not only against officers who are bound to do a public duty but also against the Government itself as Article 226 and 361 provided that appropriate proceedings may be brought against the Government concerned. This writ is also available against inferior Courts or other Judicial bodies when they have refused to exercise their jurisdiction and thus to perform their duty Further, Mandamus will not be granted against the following persons: (i) The President or the Governor of a State, for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his Office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. (ii) Mandamus does not lie against a private individual or body whether incorporated or not except where the State is in collusion with such private party, in the matter of contravention of any provision of the Constitution or a Statute or a Statutory instrument. (iii) It will not lie against the State legislature to prevent from considering enacting a law alleged to be violative of constitutional provisions. (iv) It will not lie against an inferior or ministerial officer who is bound to obey the orders of his superiors Thus, Writ of Mandamus is a general remedy whenever justice has been denied to any person.

C) Prohibition:-

The expression ‘prohibition’ literally means ‘to prohibit’. The Writ of Prohibition is a Judicial order issued by the Supreme Court or a High Court to an inferior Court or quasi-judicial body forbidding the latter to continue proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction or to usurp a jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested. Thus, object of the writ is to compel inferior courts to keep themselves within the limits of their jurisdiction. Earlier, this writ was used to issue only to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. But such requirement is no longer valid. With the expanding dimensions of natural justice and the requirement of fairness in administrative functions, the rigidity about prohibition has been liberalized. This writ can now lie to anybody, irrespective of the nature of function exercised by it, if any of the grounds on which the writ is issued is present. The writ of prohibition can be issued on the following grounds: (i) Absence or Excess of jurisdiction; (ii) Violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) Unconstitutionality of a Statute; (iv) Infraction of Fundamental Rights Thus, writ of prohibition is available during the pendency of the proceedings and before the order is made. The object is to secure that the jurisdiction of an inferior court or tribunal is properly exercised and that it does not usurp the jurisdiction which it does not possess.

D) Certiorari:-

The expression “ certiorari” is a Latin word which means “ to certify”. This writ confers power on the Supreme Court and High Courts to correct illegality of their decisions. ‘Certiorari’ is a judicial order issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and/or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to an inferior Court or quasi-judicial or any administrative body to transmit to the Court of records of proceedings pending therein for scrutiny and decide the legality and validity of the orders passed by them. If the decision is bad in law, it is quashed. T he conditions necessary for the issue of the writ of certiorari are:- (i) Any body of persons; (ii) Having legal authority; (iii) To determine questions affecting the rights of subjects; (iv) Having the duty to act judicially; (v) Act in excess of legal authority The grounds on which the writ of certiorari may be issued are: (a) Error of Jurisdiction (i) Lack of jurisdiction (ii) Excess of jurisdiction (b) Abuse of jurisdiction (d) Error of law apparent on the face of the record (e) Violation of principles of natural justice The purpose of the writ of certiorari is not only negative in the sense that it is used to quash an action but it contains affirmative action as well. It is preventive as well as curative in nature. The power of judicial review is not restricted where glaring injustice demands affirmative action. Case study:- In A.K. Kripak Vs Union of India , AIR 1970 SC 150, the Supreme Court issued the writ of certiorari to quash the selection list of the Indian Forest Service on the ground that one of the selected candidates was the ex-officio member of the selection committee. E) Writ of Quo Warranto:- The Writ of ‘Quo Warranto’ questions the title as to the holder of an office. The term ‘Quo Warranto’ means ‘what is your authority ‘ It is a judicial order asking a person, who occupies public office, to show by what authority s/he holds the office. If it is found that the holder of the office has no valid title, then this writ is issued to him to oust from the office. Thus writ of Quo Warranto is a mode of judicial control in the sense that the proceedings review the actions of the administrative authority which appointed the person. The writ is issued to the person ousting him from holding a public post to which he has no right. It is used to try the civil right to a public post. Accordingly, the use of the writ is made in cases of usurpation of a public office and removal of such usurper. Conversely, it protects citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. A petition for the writ of Quo Warranto can be filed by any person though he is not an aggrieved person.

The conditions necessary for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto are:

(i) The office must be public and it must be created by a statute or by the constitution itself. (ii) The office must be a substantive one and not merely the function or employment of a servant at the will and during the pleasure of another. (iii) There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a statute or statutory instrument, in appointing such person to that office. The fundamental basis of the proceeding of Quo Warranto is that the public has an interest to see that an unlawful claimant does not usurp a public office. It is, however, a discretionary remedy which the Court may grant or refuse according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, it may be refused when it is vexatious or where it would be futile in its result or where the petitioner is guilty of laches or where there is an alternative remedy for ousting the usurper. In P.L. Lakhan Pal Vs A.N.Ray, AIR 1975 Del.66, the Delhi High Court refused to issue writ against Chief Justice of India, Justice Ray because it would be futile in its result as the three Judges senior to him already resigned. Justice Ray becomes the seniormost and as such can be re-appointed even it were assumed that the appointment of Chief Justice of India should be on the basis of seniority rule. Conclusion: Thus it is clear that vast powers are vested with the Judiciary to control an administrative action when it infringes fundamental rights of the citizens or when it goes beyond the spirit of Grundnorm of our country i.e Constitution of India. It ensures the Rule of Law and proper check and balances between the three organs of our democratic system.The philosophy of writs is well synchronized in our Constitutional provisions to ensure that rights of citizens are not suppressed by an arbitrary administrative or Judicial action. Bibliography:- 1.Prof.Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad,2012 2.Dr.D.D.Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, Agra, 2005. 3.Dr.J.J.R. Upadhyaya, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency, Allahabad,2013. 4.Dr.Rega Surya Rao, Lectures on Administrative Law, Asia Law House, Hyderabad,2012. 5. Bhim Singh Vs State of Jammu& Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494, 6. Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579 7. A.K. Kripak Vs Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 8. P.L. Lakhan Pal Vs A.N.Ray, AIR 1975 Del.66 The writer can be approached at [email protected]

Author Bio:   Ramanjeet, M.Sc. LL.B, LL.M(Pursuing) The writer works as Assistant in the Judicial Department(District Courts), Ludhiana.

Email:   [email protected], website:   http://www.legalserviceindia.com, how to submit your article:, follow the procedure below to submit your articles, file your copyright - right now.

File Divorce in Delhi - Right Now!

[email protected]

• Our Centers Delhi Bhubaneswar Lucknow

CURRENT AFFAIRS FOR UPSC IAS

‘Article 32 and its ever changing interpretation’

Published: 23rd Nov, 2020

In a latest development, a Supreme Court Bench observed that it is “trying to discourage” individuals from filing petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.

• The observation came during the hearing of a petition seeking  the release of journalist Siddique Kappan , who  was arrested with three others while on their way to Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, to report on an alleged gangrape and murder.
• Kerala-based Kappan was arrested on 5 October when he was on his way to Hathras to report on the  alleged gang rape and murder of a 20-year-old Dalit woman.
• The police had initially arrested Kappan, along with three others, under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on the suspicion that they may commit some cognisable offence. Later, they were also booked on charges of sedition and sections of the  Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

What is Article 32?

• Article 32 is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled.
• It deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
• It states that the Supreme Court “shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”.
• The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.
• The Article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including to Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion.
• Only if any of these fundamental rights is violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.
• The rights guaranteed under Article 32 cannot be suspended unless  provided for by the Constitution.

What is the Court’s observation on Article 32?

• In the case of the journalist Siddique Kappan , the court asked why the petitioners could not go to the High Court.
• It has sought responses from the Centre and the UP government.
• In another case last week invoking Article 32, filed by a Nagpur-based man  arrested in three cases for alleged defamatory content against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and others, the same Bench directed him to approach the High Court first.
• The Supreme Court directed the Bombay High Court to  expedite the hearing on a bail plea filed on medical grounds, pending since September.
• It observed that once a competent court had taken cognisance, it was under the authority of that court to decide on the matter.
• The court had then said that the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and that “there is no doubt that if a citizen of India is deterred in any case from approaching this Court in exercise of his right under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it would amount to a serious and direct interference in the administration of justice in the country”.

One of the most significant features of Article 32 is that the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders or writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. Someone can seek justice through the five types of writs as provided by Article 32 of the Constitution. These are —

• Habeas corpus: Considered to be among the most important writs for personal liberty, habeas corpus literally means to ‘ produce the body ‘. It is invoked to seek relief in cases where a person has been unlawfully detained. Individuals can file habeas corpus petitions if they believe they have been wrongfully imprisoned.
• Mandamus: The writ of mandamus is  issued  by a higher court to a lower court or a government official or body, directing them to perform duties that they have refused to do.
• Certiorari: A superior court  issues  a certiorari writ for re-examination of an action or decision by a lower court. It is invoked when a judgment has been delivered in violation of principles of natural justice or in opposition to the procedure established by law.
• Prohibition: The writ of prohibition is to  stop a lower court  from going ahead with certain proceedings to ensure that it does not exceed its jurisdiction.
• Quo warranto: This writ is issued to prevent people from assuming positions in public office when she or he is not entitled to it.

Where to approach for violation of FRs? SC or HC?

• In civil or criminal matters, the first remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of trial courts, followed by an appeal in the High Court and then the Supreme Court.
• When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.
• Article 226, however, is not a fundamental right like Article 32.

How Article 32 is different from Article 226?

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V Chapter V of the Constitution. It empowers the High Courts to issue certain writs.
• Article 226 gives discretionary power to the High courts to issue direction, order, writs including the writs in nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari
• The scope of Article 226 is much wide than Article 32.
• It not only gives the power to issue direction, order or writs not enforce fundamental rights but also for the enforcement of other rights too.
• It also talks about the interim order for writs and also states the mechanism of how interim order will be disposed of by the High courts. 

Article 32 is a fundamental right which empowers the Supreme court to issue direction, order, and writs.  It is known as 'the heart and soul of the Constitution'. It ensures that the rights of the Indian citizens are protected and provisions of the Constitution of India are upheld. 

More Articles

Verifying, please be patient.

Our Centers

DELHI (Karol Bagh)

GS SCORE, 1B, Second Floor, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 (Beside Karol Bagh Metro Station Gate No. 8)

Get directions on Google Maps

BHUBANESWAR (Jaydev Vihar)

GS SCORE, Plot No.2298, Jaydev Vihar Square, Near HCG Day Care, BBSR - 751013

LUCKNOW (Aliganj)

GS SCORE, 2nd Floor, B-33, Sangam Chauraha, Sector H, Aliganj, Lucknow, UP - 226024

Delhi (Karol Bagh) Centre

GS SCORE, Second Floor, Metro Tower, 1B, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 (Beside Karol Bagh Metro Station Gate No. 8)

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +91 8448496262

Classroom / online / Live programs

• Mains Classes
• Mains Advance Classes
• Ethics & Essay Classes
• IAS Foundation
• Aadhar:NCERT Foundation
• Target PT:Prelims Classes
• Current Affairs Mentorship Program
• Optional Classes
• Optional Q&A (TEST SERIES & Mentorship)
• Mains Previous Year Questions

TEST SERIES/ MENTORSHIP

• ITS:Integrated Test Series & Mentorship
• GS Mains Q&A (Mentorship & Test Series)
• GS Test Series
• Ethics & Essay Test Series
• Samarth - Mains Answer Writing

STUDY MATERIAL

• Prelims Study Material
• Mains Study Material
• Mains Answer Writing Workbook
• Meet the Mentor
• Terms & Conditions
• © 2024 - IAS SCORE

All Rights Reserved.

Welcome to our secure login portal. Access your account with ease.

• Using Password

Not registered yet? register here!

Welcome to our secure register portal. For a brighter future, register now and unlock endless learning opportunities.

User Register

Already have an account? Login

Oops, forgot your password? Don't worry, we've got you covered. Reset it here

Lost your login details? No problem! forgot your password in just a few clicks

Forgot Password

Verify your mobile number, you have successfully logged in.

Join Us on WhatsApp

Constitution of India

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus , mandamus , prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari , whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Article 25, Draft Constitution of India 1948

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders in the nature of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2) of this article.

(4) The rights guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Article 32, Constitution of India 1950

⁠(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus , mandamus , prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari , whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

⁠(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

⁠(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

The Constituent Assembly took up Draft Article 25 for debate on 9 December 1948 . The Draft Article gives citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court for constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights are violated.

The Assembly was unanimous about the importance of the Article. Members referred to the provision in terms that included ‘ the crowning section ’ and ‘ very soul… and the very heart of the Constitution ’. However, some amendments were moved.

A member wanted to remove the mention of specific writs in the provision. He felt that this would constrain judges, as they would not be able to evolve new writs in the future. Another member was unhappy with clause 4 that allowed for the suspension of the Draft Article during an emergency which he termed as a ‘ dangerous situation ’.

It was clarified that the specific writs mentioned in the provision were in existence in Great Britain for a very long time, they have been tried and tested, and most lawyers, judges and jurists were familiar with them. It was further stated that it was near to impossible to improve upon the existing writs and therefore there really was no possibility of new writs emerging. On the question of suspension of the Draft Article, it was argued that is was reasonable to suspend or limit fundamental rights during an emergency as the very life of the State was at stake.

The Draft Article was adopted with some amendments on the same day, that is 9 December 1948.

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Indian Polity

Make Your Note

Article 32 of the Constitution

• 17 Nov 2020
• GS Paper - 2
• Indian Constitution
• Fundamental Rights

Why in News

Recently, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) , during a hearing of a plea, said that the court is trying to discourage petitions filed under Article 32.

• CJI’s View: CJI noted that there is a spate of Article 32 petitions and reiterated that the High Court can also uphold fundamental rights (under article 226) .
• The SC has power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. The writs issued may include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto .
• The right to move the SC shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution provides that the President can suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights during a national emergency (Article 359) .
• Original, because an aggrieved citizen can directly go to the SC, not necessarily by way of appeal .
• Concurrent means when the Fundamental Rights of a citizen are violated, the aggrieved party has the option of moving either the high court or the Supreme Court directly.
• Since the right guaranteed by Article 32 (ie, the right to move the SC where a fundamental right is infringed) is in itself a fundamental right , the availability of alternate remedy is no bar to relief under Article 32 .
• However, the SC has ruled that where relief through the high court is available under Article 226 , the aggrieved party should first move the high court .
• In the Chandra Kumar case (1997) , the SC ruled that the writ jurisdiction of both the high court and the Supreme Court constitute a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Most recently, the SC transferred the case involving land use for the national capital’s Central Vista project to itself from the Delhi High Court. Incidentally, the petitioners had not sought such a transfer.
• When such transfers are made, the petitioners lose a stage of appeal that would otherwise have been available had the high courts heard and decided the case.
• Recently, the SC also conveyed its concerns that in many matters involving personal liberty, the High Courts are not exercising their jurisdiction as constitutional courts .

Article 226 of the Constitution

• This is because the SC can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights and not for any other purpose, that is, it does not extend to a case where the breach of an ordinary legal right is alleged.
• The high court can issue writs to any person, authority and government not only within its territorial jurisdiction but also outside its territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

WRITS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Published by admin on july 13, 2023 july 13, 2023.

This article is written by Virat Singh of 7 th Semester of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University

This article provides a concise overview of the significance and impact of writs under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Article 32 confers upon the Supreme Court the power to issue writs, ensuring the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights. This article explores the historical context, legal framework, and implications of writs under Article 32, shedding light on their role as a vital tool for upholding constitutional rights and fostering social justice.

This abstract discusses the fundamental role of Article 32 writs in safeguarding individual rights against encroachment by the state. It explores several landmark cases where the Supreme Court employed these writs to provide relief, correct injustices, and prevent human rights violations. Notable cases include the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the scope of fundamental rights and broadened the ambit of judicial review.

In conclusion, this abstract underscore the indispensable role of writs under Article 32 in India’s constitutional democracy. It emphasizes how these writs empower the Supreme Court to act as the guardian of fundamental rights, offering citizens a powerful recourse against infringement and acting as a bulwark against executive excesses. By ensuring the protection of individual liberties and fostering social justice, writs under Article 32 contribute to upholding the ideals enshrined in the Indian Constitution and promoting a just and inclusive society.

Keywords : Writs, article 32, Constitution of India, Right to constitutional remedies, prerogative writs.

INTRODUCTION

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution bestows upon individuals the fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court of India directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This provision, regarded as a cornerstone of the Constitution, empowers citizens to seek legal remedies when their fundamental rights are violated, thus ensuring the protection and preservation of individual liberties. Article 32 serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions of the government, enabling the judiciary to act as a guardian of the Constitution and an arbiter of justice. By granting direct access to the apex court, Article 32 reinforces the principles of equality, justice, and the rule of law, fostering a democratic society built on the pillars of fundamental rights and constitutional governance. It states that—

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. —

• The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
• The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part…” [1]

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar provided a thought-provoking insight when he expressed–

“If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important-an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity-I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it and I am glad that the House has realised its importance” [2]

In this article we’d be dealing with nitty gritty of Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We will be delving into definitions of writs, their types and applications. In the last part, we’d be discussing some of the important case laws in this regard.

WRIT AND WRIT PETITION

A writ can be analogized to a written directive issued by a higher court to a court of lower jurisdiction or to an individual in cases where there has been a violation of a citizen’s fundamental rights. In accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Indian Supreme Court possesses the authority to issue such writs.

A writ petition refers to a formal written application or document submitted to a court, typically a higher court, seeking legal remedies or relief for the violation of fundamental rights or a legal right. It is a legal mechanism by which an aggrieved party, such as an individual, organization, or entity, can approach the court to seek justice, protection, or redressal for a specific issue or grievance. Writ petitions are usually filed in response to a violation of constitutional rights, and they enable the court to exercise its power of judicial review and provide appropriate remedies or orders to address the situation.

TYPES OF WRITS

There are five main types of writs recognized under the Indian legal system. These five types of writs are as follows:

• Habeas Corpus: Habeas Corpus, derived from Latin meaning “you shall have the body,” is a legal recourse that ensures the protection of individual liberty by enabling a person who is unlawfully detained or imprisoned to seek immediate release. This legal remedy, deeply rooted in the principles of due process and fundamental rights, has been upheld and reinforced through various significant case laws.

One notable case that exemplifies the significance of habeas corpus is the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [3] . In this case, the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of personal liberty and emphasized that any law depriving a person of their liberty must adhere to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and procedural safeguards. The court held that the right to personal liberty, encompassing the right to live with dignity, was a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling not only reiterated the importance of habeas corpus in safeguarding individual freedom but also reinforced the duty of the court to review and rectify any infringement of such rights.

Another significant case that highlights the potency of habeas corpus is A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [4] . In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the preventive aspect of habeas corpus, stating that the court can intervene to secure the release of a person even before an actual arrest or detention takes place. The judgment reaffirmed the vital role of habeas corpus as a preventive check against arbitrary state action, ensuring that the government does not unlawfully restrict an individual’s freedom.

• Mandamus: Mandamus, a writ derived from Latin meaning “we command,” is a powerful legal remedy employed to compel a public authority or official to perform their lawful duties and fulfil specific obligations. It serves as a judicial tool to ensure that public officials act within the bounds of the law, exercise their powers judiciously, and do not abuse their authority.

A significant case that resonates with the significance of mandamus is the State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah [5] . In this case, the Supreme Court of India reiterated that mandamus can be invoked when a government servant is wrongfully denied promotion despite meeting the necessary eligibility criteria. The court held that if the authorities fail to rectify the injustice and grant the promotion deserved, the writ of mandamus can be issued to compel them to act in accordance with the law.

The judgment in State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah underscores the crucial role of mandamus in ensuring accountability and efficiency in the functioning of public bodies. By wielding the power of mandamus, the court ensures that public officials perform their duties diligently, uphold the principles of fairness and justice, and prevent any misuse or nonfeasance of their powers.

• Prohibition: Prohibition refers to a writ issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal, restraining them from exceeding their jurisdiction or acting beyond their authority. It acts as a safeguard against potential miscarriage of justice or unlawful exercise of power by lower courts. Prohibition ensures that lower courts operate within their prescribed limits and do not transgress the boundaries of their authority.

One notable case that exemplifies the significance of prohibition is Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana [6] (1991). In this case, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a writ of prohibition can be invoked when a lower court attempts to exercise jurisdiction over matters outside its legal authority. The court reiterated that prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent lower courts from acting ultra vires and trespassing upon matters that fall beyond their competence.

• Certiorari: Certiorari, derived from Latin meaning “to be certified,” is a powerful writ employed by higher courts to review the decisions of lower courts or tribunals. It serves as a mechanism to ensure that the lower court’s judgment is in accordance with the law and to correct any errors of law or jurisdiction. Certiorari acts as a safeguard against judicial overreach or miscarriage of justice, reinforcing the principles of fairness, equity, and the rule of law.

One significant case in this regard is the celebrated judgment of Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [7] . In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India exercised its power of certiorari to review and evaluate the constitutionality of certain amendments made to the Indian Constitution. The court held that it had the authority to examine the validity of legislative actions and struck a balance between the powers of the Parliament and the fundamental rights of citizens.

Another notable case that highlights the potency of certiorari is A.K. Roy v. Union of India [8] . In this case, the Supreme Court invoked certiorari to review the decision of a disciplinary authority, emphasizing that it had the jurisdiction to assess the legality and propriety of administrative actions. The court held that certiorari can be used to correct errors of jurisdiction, procedure, or law, and to ensure that administrative bodies act within their powers and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

• Quo Warranto: The writ of quo warranto, a legal term derived from Latin meaning “by what authority,” is a powerful legal remedy used to inquire into the legitimacy or validity of a person holding a public office, position, or franchise. It challenges the authority or qualifications of the individual and seeks to prevent the unlawful occupancy of public positions. Quo warranto acts as a mechanism to ensure that public offices are held by those who are duly qualified and have the legal authority to occupy them.

One significant case that illustrates the importance of quo warranto is Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. [9] . In this case, the Supreme Court invoked quo warranto to question the appointment of persons to the post of constables in the police force. The court emphasized that it was necessary to ascertain whether the appointments were made in compliance with the relevant rules and qualifications. This case demonstrated the significance of quo warranto in scrutinizing appointments to public offices and preventing unauthorized individuals from assuming such positions.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS REGARD

• The Supreme Court, in the matter of Shashidhar M. v. Poornima C [10] , established that writ petitions seeking to recall directives in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) are not maintainable.
• In the case of Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India [11] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the significance and essential nature of Article 32 as an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure. It emphasized that Article 32 ensures adherence to the rule of law and serves as a robust tool for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• In the case of Mohammad Moin Faridullah Qureshi v. The State of Maharashtra [12] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that when a judgment is deemed final under Article 32, it cannot be disputed or challenged further.
• In the case of Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [13] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that writ petitions cannot be filed to quash criminal proceedings or First Information Reports (FIRs).
• In the case of Sharad Zaveri vs Union of India [14] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that not all conflicts relating to places of worship can be brought before the Supreme Court under Article 32.
• In the case of Dharmaraj Singh vs The State of Bihar [15] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned against submitting petitions related to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, disguised as petitions under Article 32.

This research article has delved into the significant role and implications of writs under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Through a comprehensive analysis of judicial precedents, scholarly works, and constitutional provisions, several key findings have emerged.

Firstly, Article 32 of the Constitution of India provides a fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This unique provision empowers the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that the rights enshrined within it are protected and upheld.

Secondly, the writ jurisdiction granted under Article 32 encompasses five types of writs, namely habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto. Each of these writs serves a distinct purpose and enables the Supreme Court to exercise its authority in the face of executive or legislative excesses or violations of fundamental rights.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, through its consistent interpretation and application of Article 32, has played a pivotal role in safeguarding individual liberties and promoting justice and equality. The Court’s expansive approach towards the writ jurisdiction has resulted in the development of jurisprudence that strengthens the democratic fabric of the nation.

Moreover, the significance of writs under Article 32 cannot be understated in addressing public interest litigation (PIL) and promoting social justice. By allowing any citizen or group to approach the Supreme Court on behalf of marginalized communities or the underprivileged, Article 32 has served as a powerful instrument for social transformation and the advancement of human rights.

However, it is essential to acknowledge the challenges and limitations associated with the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 32. The delicate balance between the judiciary and the other organs of the state, as well as the need to ensure the efficient functioning of the justice system, must be carefully maintained.

In conclusion, the writ jurisdiction conferred by Article 32 of the Constitution of India is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system. It empowers the Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights, redress grievances, and uphold the rule of law. By embracing its constitutional duty, the judiciary can continue to shape a just and inclusive society, ensuring that the rights and aspirations of every Indian citizen are safeguarded.

• https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/right-to-constitutional-remedies/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-32-constitution-india/
• https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1171702/?big=3&formInput=article%2032
• https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s380537a945c7aaa788ccfcdf1b99b5d8f/uploads/2023/05/2023050195.pdf

[1] Article 32, Part III, Fundamental Rights, Constitution of India

[2] Constituent Assembly Debates, December 9, 1948, Vol. VII, p. 953

[3] AIR 1978 SC 597

[4] AIR 1950 SC 27

[5] Civil Appeal No. 9072 of 1996

[6] 1970 AIR 694 1970 SCR (2) 835 1969 SCC (3) 268

[7] (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461

[8] AIR 1982 SC 710

[9] (2008) 7 SCC 164

[10] Civil Original Jurisdiction Writ Petition(C) Diary No. 3839 OF 2018

[11] Civil Original Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Civil) No. 961 OF 2018

[12] Writ Petition (Criminal) No.287/2020

[13] Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 457/2021

[14] WP(C) 339/2022

[15] Writ Petition (Criminal) No.11/2022

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Posts

Constitutional Law

Detailed analysis of directive principles.

Spread the loveThis article is written by Akshara Maheshwari of 3rd Semester of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur, an intern under Legal Vidhiya Abstract One distinctive aspect of the Indian Constitution is the Directive Principles Read more…

UNVEILING DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Spread the loveThis article is written by Naveen Prabhat Singh of 1st Year of Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) New Law College, Pune, an intern under Legal Vidhiya Abstract Sovereign immunity, a foundational principle Read more…

FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES

Spread the loveThis article is written by Bhumi Reddy Vanaja of BA LLB of 4th Year of  Sri Padmavati Mahila Viswa Vidyalayam, Tirupati,  an Intern under Legal Vidhiya ABSTRACT  The term “fundamental duties” refers to Read more…

11 years 🥳 of Publication

• Law Firm & In-house Updates
• Read to know

Applicability & Scope of Article 32 of Constitution of India

Article 32 of Constitution of India gives the right to move the Supreme Court of India by appropriate proceedings for enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India. The provision merely keeps open the doors of the Supreme Court, in much of the same way as is used to be said, the doors of Chancery court were always open.

The Article 32 read as follows:

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

The State cannot place hindrance in the way of an aggrieved person seeking to approach the Supreme Court. This is logical enough for it is against State action that fundamental rights are claimed. But, the guarantee goes no further at least on the terms of Article 32. Having reached the Supreme Court, the extent or manner of interference is for the court to decide. It is clear that every case doesn’t merit interference. That must always depend upon the facts of the case. In dealing with cases which have come before it, the Supreme Court has already settled many principles on which it acts.

The Supreme Court refrains from acting under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, if the party has already moved to the High Court under Article 226. This constitute a comity between the Supreme Court and High Court. Similarly, when a party had already moved High Court with a similar complaint and for the same relief and failed, the Supreme Court insisted on an appeal to be brought before it and does not allow fresh proceedings to be started.

Another restraint the Supreme Court puts on itself is that it doesn’t allow a new ground to be taken in appeal, In the same way, Supreme Court has refrained from taking action when a better remedy is to move High Court under Article 226 which can go into the controversy more comprehensively than the Supreme Court can under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It follows, therefore, that the Supreme Court puts itself to restraint in the matter of petitions under Article 32 and this practice has now become inveterate. [1]

Article 32 is not to be invoked for infringement of a personal right of contract, nor is to be invoked for agitating questions which are capable of disposal under special enactments. [2]

A writ petition cannot be filed under Article 32 to enforce right under Article 265 of the Constitution, as the right conferred by Article 265 is not a right conferred by Part III of the Constitution. [3]

In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [4] added a new dimension to judicial activism and raised a set of vital questions, such as, liability of State to compensate for unlawful detention, feasibility of claiming compensation from the State under Article 32 for wrongful deprivation of fundamental rights, propriety of the Supreme Court passing an order for compensation on a habeas corpus petition for enforcing the right to personal liberty.

The Supreme Court in the above case observed: (SCC p. 147, para 9)

“9. It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of courts, civil and criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right.”

The Court further observed: In the circumstances of the case the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation.

The Supreme Court had taken a different view in Jiwan Mal Kochar v. Union of India [5] by holding that the petitioner could not be granted the damages and compensation under Article 32 of the Constitution when the writ petition was filed challenging certain remarks made against him by the Supreme Court behind his back at the instance of Respondents 3 to 10 in the writ petition and requested awarding of damages and compensation against the Union of India and other respondents including the State of Madhya Pradesh for all losses, direct or indirect, and humiliations and indignity suffered by him.

In Naresh v. State of Maharashtra [6] , it was held that a judicial order passed by the High Court in or in relation to proceedings brought before, it for its adjudication, cannot become the subject-matter of writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32(2) of the Constitution. If a judicial order like the one in the present proceedings made by the High Court binds strangers, the strangers may challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings in appeal under Article 136. It would, however, not be open to them to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and contend that a writ of certiorari should be issued in respect of it. The impugned order is passed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court and its validity is not open to be challenged by writ proceedings.

In the hands of the Supreme Court public interest litigation in India has taken multidimensional character. The age-old adversarial system has been given a go-by. With the advent of judicial activism, letters, newspaper reports, complaints by public-spirited persons, social action groups bringing to the notice of the Court regarding violation of fundamental rights were dealt with treating them as writ petitions and the relief of compensation was also granted through writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.

[1] Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1970 SC 898

[2] C.K. Achuthan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1959 SC 490

[3] Laxmanappa v Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 3

[4] (1983) 4 SCC 141

[5] (1984) 1 SCC 200

[6] AIR 1967 SC 1

You Might Also Like

How legal regulations affect your rights as an employee, highlights of new criminal laws of india, auto accidents to medical malpractice: the different types of personal injury cases, enforcement of arbitral awards, hegelian approach to intellectual property.

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

Sign up for daily newsletter, be keep up get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox., leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Right To Constitutional Remedies | Explained

Right to constitutional remedies | overview introduction article 32 article 226 essentials for a writ public interest litigation the right to constitutional remedies becomes an indispensable part of our fundamental rights as it assures the actual dispensation of justice, on the curtailment of our basic rights. it gives an insight into the five types of writs, which may… read more ».

Right To Constitutional Remedies | Overview Introduction ARTICLE 32 ARTICLE 226 Essentials for a writ Public Interest Litigation The Right to Constitutional Remedies becomes an indispensable part of our Fundamental Rights as it assures the actual dispensation of justice, on the curtailment of our basic rights. It gives an insight into the five types of writs, which may be granted by the Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. This jurisdiction may be exercised by...

Right To Constitutional Remedies | Overview

Introduction.

• ARTICLE 226
• Essentials for a writ

Public Interest Litigation

The Right to Constitutional Remedies becomes an indispensable part of our Fundamental Rights as it assures the actual dispensation of justice, on the curtailment of our basic rights. It gives an insight into the five types of writs, which may be granted by the Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. This jurisdiction may be exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The fundamental rights were incorporated in the constitution, not merely to provide security and equality to the citizens but also equality of justice and fair play. Abstract declaration of these paramount important rights is meaningless unless there is effective machinery for the enforcement of the rights. To fructify these rights into actual liberties, a detailed legal provision was incorporated in the constitution itself to safeguard these rights. Under Article 32, the enforceability of these rights was included as a fundamental right and an almost parallel provision was provided under Article 226 as a constitutional right.

According to Art. 13, Fundamental Rights are enforceable and any law inconsistent with a Fundamental Right is void. Art. 13 is the key provision as it makes Fundamental Rights justiciable. Supreme Court has figuratively characterised this role of the judiciary as that of a “sentinel on the qui vive” . [1] Art. 32 confers power on the Supreme Court to enforce the Fundamental Rights. The High Courts also have a parallel power under Art. 226 to enforce the Fundamental Rights

Right To Constitutional Remedies

I. article 32.

Right of access to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 is a Fundamental Right itself. Article 32 provides a guaranteed, quick and summary remedy for enforcing the Fundamental Rights because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court without having to undergo the dilatory process of proceeding from the lower to the higher Court as he has to do in other ordinary litigation.

Speaking on Art 32, the Drafting Chairman of the Indian Constitution described this Article as the very soul and heart of the Constitution, because it provided effective remedies against violation of Fundamental Rights and without which the Constitution would be a nullity [2] .

To understand the provision in their true spirit and context, it would be desirable to first see them in their literal context. Article 32 of the constitution is provided in the constitution in the following form:-

Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

• The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
• The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
• Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
• The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

Art. 32(1) provides a very important safeguard for the protection of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India. It guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court, by appropriate proceedings, for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The Court has emphasized in Romesh Thappar [3] that,

“This Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights, and it cannot consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.”

Art. 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue appropriate orders or directions, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights. It confers power on the Court in its widest terms. “It is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs”, but “it is much wider and includes within its matrix power to issue any directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for enforcement of the Fundamental Right in question”.

Article 32(3) empowers Parliament by law to empower any other Court to exercise within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under Art. 32(2). This can however be done without prejudice to the Supreme Court’s powers under Arts. 32(1) and (2). While incorporating this provision in the constitution, it was there in the minds of the framers that keeping in view its role and effectiveness and keeping in view the vast size of the country, the Supreme Court alone may not be able to cater to the needs of the people for this purpose.

It could be in their mind that these powers might be needed more and more. Anticipating this situation, they specifically provided it in the constitution and empowered the parliament to empower any other court also to exercise these powers within the local limits of jurisdiction of such court.

According to Art. 32(4), the right guaranteed by Art. 32 “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution.”

Example: During an emergency, Art. 359 provides for the suspension of the right to move any Court for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights by a presidential order.

Even under this provision, after 44th amendment to the constitution of India, fundamental rights as available under Article 21 and 22 cannot be suspended even in the state of emergency. The right provided under this Article can only be suspended by a specific constitutional provision alone and not by any statute.

II. ARTICLE 226

Article 226 as available in the constitution is reproduced below:

“ Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs —

• Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of any of the right conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
• The power conferred by Cl. (1) to issue directions, orders or writs in any government, authority or person may be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding tha.t the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
• Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made or in any proceedings relating to petition under Cl. (1) without— (a). furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and ( b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within the period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or v/here the High Court is closed on the last day of the period, before the expiry of next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is hot so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
• The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Cl. (2) of Article 32.”

Cl. (1) of Article 226 is a non-obstante clause which reveals that the power of the High Court to issue writs orders and directions inappropriate cases are independent of such powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution. Article 226 has a much wider scope than Article 32 in general. The scope of these powers is not only restricted to the fundamental rights only but it extends to “any other purpose” also.

Cl. (2) of Article 226 puts a territorial restriction on its jurisdiction under this provision. The High Courts are restricted to exercise these powers within their territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the powers of the High Courts are limited as far as the area of jurisdiction is concerned.

The High court can issue a writ,

• to a person or authority having its location or residence within the court’s territorial jurisdiction or
• if the cause of action either wholly or partly arises within the high court’s territorial jurisdiction.

It is the duty of the High Court before which the writ petition is filed to ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. It depends on the facts of each case. When an order is challenged, cause of action arises (i ) at the place where the order was made, as well as; (ii) at the place where its consequences fall on the person concerned.

The High Court can issue a writ even when the person resides, or the authority is located, outside its territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction. When a part of the cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum.

Cl. (3) of Article 226 provides a safeguard against the adverse impact of ex-parte interim orders passed by the High Courts under Article 226. The constitution has provided a meticulously drafted provision which is primarily based on the principles of natural justice i.e . no one should be proceeded against unheard . No adverse order may be passed behind the back of the person who is adversely affected by such order. If such an order is passed the other party has to be heard within a period of two weeks as provided under this clause.

Clause (4) of Art. 226 clarifies that the powers to be exercised by the High Courts under this Article would not be in derogation of such powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32. Notwithstanding the parallel nature of the two provisions, the Supreme Court enjoys a superior status in this regard. After, going through the broad contours of the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and that of the High Courts under Article 226 of the constitution, it is revealed that the nature of these powers is almost the same.

The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution are limited only to the enforcement of fundamental rights, whereas the High Court can exercise such powers for any other purpose also apart from the enforcement of fundamental rights. Therefore the High Court encompasses a wider area of jurisdiction as far as the subject of the writ jurisdiction is concerned. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has a wider territorial jurisdiction than the High Courts.

In the matter of enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the High Courts under Art. 226, and the Supreme Court under Art. 32, enjoy concurrent jurisdiction.

A question has been raised whether a petitioner seeking to enforce his Fundamental Rights can go straight to the Supreme Court under Art. 32, or should he first go to a High Court under Art. 226. As early as 1950, in Romesh Thappar [4] , the Supreme Court ruled that such a petitioner can come straight to the Supreme Court without going to the High Court first. The Court stated that,

“unlike Art. 226, Art. 32 confers a Fundamental Right on the individual and imposes an obligation on the Supreme Court which it must discharge when a person complains of infringement of a Fundamental Right. Art. 32 provides a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights and constitutes the Supreme Court as the “guarantor and protector of Fundamental Rights.”

Even otherwise, on merits, this view will make Art. 32 redundant for after having gone to the High Court first under Art. 226, the petitioner would then come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal and not under Art. 32, because of the principle of res judicata.

The principle of res judicata envisages that if a judgment has been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it is binding between the parties unless it is reversed or modified in appeal, revision or other procedure prescribed by law. According to the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of a High Court in dealing with a writ petition under Art. 226 is substantially the same as that of the Supreme Court under Art. 32. The scope of the writs under both the Articles being concurrent, res judicata applies. The High Court’s decision can be attacked in an appeal to the Supreme Court but not through a writ petition.

When a litigant approaches the Supreme Court, the matter is decided by the Court finally. But if he approaches the High Court, the petition is first decided by a single judge, an appeal then lies to the division bench, and, thereafter, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, this may cause more delay and prove costlier to the petitioner than a writ petition directly under Art. 32.

Thus it has been held that writ petitions can be filed in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 without first going to the High Court under Art. 226.

III. Essentials for a writ

For a writ petition to be filed before the Supreme Court on Article 32 the following two conditions should be fulfilled.

• There should be an infringement of fundamental rights
• It should be independent of any alternative remedy

Violation of a Fundamental Right is sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Art. 32. Art. 32 can be invoked only when there is an infringement of a Fundamental Right.

In Jahirul Islam v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited [5] the court held that,

“as the respondent-JUVNL has already constituted Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums at five different places for adjudication of electricity dispute, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and directed to prefer a complaint before the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.”

Thus the person before filing a writ should have exhausted the alternative remedy available. However, this is no absolute bar on writ jurisdiction. This was expressed in Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India [6] as follows,

“The mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors.”

Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and, therefore, the existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to the Supreme Court entertaining a petition under Article 32 for the enforcement of a Fundamental Right.

When once the Court is satisfied that the petitioner’s Fundamental Right has been infringed, it is not only its right but also its duty to afford relief to the petitioner, and he need not establish either that he has no other adequate remedy, or that he has exhausted all remedies provided by law, but has not obtained proper redress. When the petitioner establishes infringement of his Fundamental Right, the Court has no discretion but to issue an appropriate writ in his favour.

IV. Types of writs

The Constitution has given the power to the Supreme Court under Art.32 and High Courts under Art 226 to issue writs in order to the enforcement of the fundamental rights against any authority in the state, at the instance of an individual whose right guaranteed under this Article has been violated. There are basically 5 types of writs:

• Habeas corpus,
• Prohibition,
• Certiorari and
• Quo warranto

1. Habeas corpus

The literal meaning of the Latin words ‘Habeas Corpus’ is to ‘have the body’. This writ is basically meant for remedy against illegal confinement of a person. It is a writ in the nature of an order calling upon the person who has detained another to produce the latter before the Court, in 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 imprisonment.

The only precondition necessary is that the person should have been confined and such confinement should be illegal.

It is available to the weakest against the mightiest with the only exception of the prison of war and the enemy alien. A petition under Art. 32 would not lie where the detention was by a private person and not by or under the authority or orders of the state. A petition for habeas corpus would lie under Art. 226 not only when a person was detained by the State but also when he was detained by another private individual (though not under Art. 32, because of Art. 226 is available not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for ‘other purposes’. [7]

Writ of habeas corpus is a writ for determining the legality or illegality of detention and not for punishing a person for a past offence. The legality of the detention has to be seen on the date when the application is heard by the court. If at any time before the court directed the release of the detainee, a valid order of detention is produced, the court may refuse the release even if the earlier detention was illegal. The application of detention if once dismissed may be filed again on the basis of fresh evidence and the principle of res-judicata would not be applicable in such cases .

If the right to move the Supreme Court under Art. 32 was suspended under Art. 32(4) in accordance with the provisions of Art. 359, the Supreme Court cannot be moved under Art. 32. However, even if fundamental rights are suspended under Art. 359, the right to move the High Court under Art. 226 is not suspended and therefore the High Court could be moved in such a situation.

In a writ of Habeas Corpus, the court cannot invalidate the provisions of the Act under which detention is ordered. However, the court at all times are entitled to have an account of why the liberty of an individual was restrained, under the inherent powers of the higher judiciary.

2. Writ of Mandamus

Mandamus is a Latin word having the meaning “We command”. Halsbury’s Laws of England have the following to say about the Writ of Mandamus:

“The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature and is in forming a command issuing from the High Court of Justice, directed to any person, corporation or inferior tribunal, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty.”

The primary purpose of this writ is to make the Government, machinery work properly. An order of mandamus is a command directed to any person, corporation or an inferior tribunal, requiring them to do some particular thing which pertains to their/his office and which is in the nature of public duty. The public servants are responsible for the judiciary for the lawfulness of their public duties and their actions under it. If a public authority fails to do what is required under law or does beyond what was to be done, a writ of mandamus may be issued to make him do what was required under law. Ayyangar J. thus observed,

“The Constitution enshrines and guarantees the rule of law and Art. 226 is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State, including the Government, acts bona fide and within the limits of its power and we consider that when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to afford justice to the individual.” [8]

Mandamus may also be issued to a tribunal to compel it to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, which it has refused to exercise. It issues in all cases where there is a specific legal right to have a function exercised and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right and also in cases where there is no alternative remedy, which may be adequate, convenient and effectual. The granting of the order of Mandamus is, in general, in die discretion of the Court.

The essentials of a writ of mandamus can be stated as follows:

• The petitioner must have a legal right;
• The respondent or respondent should be having a legal duty;
• The petitioner has no other alternative remedy;
• There had been a demand a refusal;
• The writ petition is filed bonafide and in good faith.

Normally, a writ of mandamus is not issued to an authority for exercise of powers, which are discretionary in nature. But if such discretion is not utilised at all, or if used in an arbitrary manner or with malafides, a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the authority to use the discretion properly. It is because of the reason that surrender of discretion, by adopting a policy pursued by a superior authority, is not less objectionable. With the growing complexity of the administration and the increasing workload of public authorities, the resultant lapses in the exercise of such authority have increased manifold.

The public has become aware of their rights and legal remedies and therefore, the tendency to move the courts for a writ of mandamus has also increased. Even very small issues are taken to the courts in writ to expedite the remedy.

Writ of Mandamus now covers practically the whole ground of Certiorari. Hence the statement, In India also there is now a ‘Certiorarified Mandamus’. When the court issues a writ of certiorarified mandamus it means the court quashes the particular order along with that it directs the authority to do what is lawful.

3. Writ of Quo Warranto

Quo Warranto is a writ issued by a superior court inquiring by what authority a person claims to exercise a particular right, or to hold a particular office.

It is a device to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices. In this process the usurper of public office may be removed and the rightful person may be allowed to occupy this office.

The claimant of a writ for quo-warranto has to satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office and has been held by the usurper without any legal authority.

In proceedings for a writ of quo Warranto the applicant does not seek to force any right of his as such; nor does he complain of non-performance of any duty towards him. The Writ in question is the right of the respondent to hold the office and an order that is passed is an order ousting him from that office.

An application for Quo-Warranto may be refused if the court finds that it would be futile to issue the writ. For example, in the case: Lakhan Pal v. A. N. Ray [9] the appointment of Mr, Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India in the suppression of three Senior Judges of the Supreme Court was challenged by a writ of Quo Warranto filed in Delhi High Court.

The writ was refused by the Court because it would have been futile as the three Senior Judges who were superseded had resigned, and after their resignation Justice A. N. Ray became the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court and could be re-appointed even if it were assumed that the appointment of a Chief Justice should be on the basis of the seniority rule. 44. What the court has to consider in a matter of quo warranto is whether the appointment had contravened any statutory provision

The court has to examine under such proceedings whether the appointment of such a person was made in accordance with law or not. The validity of the rules or statute under which such appointment was made cannot be challenged under these proceedings. A stranger to such post can also apply for a writ of quo warranto. The writ of quo-warranto operates against the holder of the office and not against the Government. The person so removed shall not be re-appointed.

A writ of quo-warranto is issued to prevent a continuous exercise of unlawful authority. However, it cannot undo the actions already taken by such authority. It cannot jeopardise the lawful rights accrued to individuals in this process. Although a writ of mandamus can also be issued on the grounds of mala fides and arbitrariness , but when the office is filled up a writ of quo warranto is preferable. Mandamus is desirable to be issued when the office is vacant.

4. Writ of Certiorari

Certiorari means “to certify”. A writ of certiorari (cert.) is an order of an appeal or appellate court ‘directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. [10] In other words it is a writ which is issued by the High Court to subordinate judicial or quasi-judicial bodies directing them to transfer the records of a particular case in order to ascertain whether the court has the jurisdiction to give the order or whether it is against the principles of natural justice . A writ of certiorari is corrective in nature.

In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [11] , the Supreme Court stated the following four propositions were stated by the Court:

• Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction ;
• Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of it undoubted jurisdictions, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard or violates the principles of natural justice ;
• The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, even if they be erroneous;
• An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law . In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision.”

5. Writ of Prohibition

The object of this writ is to restrain the Courts or inferior tribunals from exercising a jurisdiction which they do not possess at all or to prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction. In other words, the object is to confine the Courts or Tribunals of inferior or limited jurisdiction within their bounds.

The writ of prohibition lies not only for excess of jurisdiction or for absence of jurisdiction but also in a case of departure from the rules of natural justice. [12]

• Absence or excess of jurisdiction – where there is an absence of jurisdiction or total lack of jurisdiction.
• Violation of natural justice – In a case where the principle of natural justice has not been observed or if observed there is a violation of those principles. For example, if the opposite party have not been served with the notice and not been heard. Then the writ of prohibition can be issued.
• Unconstitutionality of Statute – whenever any tribunal or court proceed to act under the law which is ultra vires or unconstitutional, a writ of prohibition can be issued against the proceedings.
• Infringement of Fundamental Right – where the impugned action is infringing any fundamental right of the petitioner then the writ of prohibition can be issued.
• Error of law Apparent on the face of Record

An order of prohibition is also directed to an inferior judicial body or tribunal forbidding such court or tribunal from continuing the proceedings in a particular matter. A writ of prohibition is appropriate to restrain a tribunal, which threatens to assume or assumes a jurisdiction not vested in it, so long as there is something in the proceedings left to prohibit. Thus like certiorari, the writ of prohibition can only be issued if the person, body or tribunal is charged with judicial or quasi-judicial duties . However, the order of prohibition is issued when the error of law is apparent on the face of the record, wherein it is issued as a matter of right and not as of discretion.

A writ of prohibition can be filed when a court acts not within the limits of their jurisdiction but beyond its prescribed limitations. For example, if a trial is being heard without the court having the jurisdiction to do so, a writ of prohibition may be filed.

Writ of certiorari can be applied in situations where a court, on passing an order, has gone beyond their jurisdiction in doing so. For example, when the court passes an order for a case which they had no power to do so, the aggrieved can apply for the writ of certiorari.

Thus certiorari and prohibition are two different writs, which are issued at different stages of a judicial proceeding to check and regulate the inferior court or tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction appropriately while remaining within the prescribed limits of such jurisdiction. It checks the errors of law in this process. Orders of prohibition are issued before the conclusion of the proceedings whereas order of certiorari is issued to undo the error of law even after the proceedings are concluded. However, the validity of the statute under which such proceedings are lodged cannot be challenged or decided under such writs

Public interest litigation means litigation filed in the court of law with the view to protect the interest of the general public. The high court can hear matters of PIL filed under Article 226. Through PIL persons who were not directly affected in the case may bring to the notice of the court matters of public interest. It is the privilege of the court to entertain the application for the public interest litigation. Public interest litigation has not been defined in any particular statute whereas it has been interpreted by the Judges.

It is the power granted to the public by the courts. PIL has an important role to play in the justice system; it affords a ladder to justice to the disadvantaged sections of the society, some of which might not even be well-informed about their rights. Furthermore, it provides an avenue to enforce diffused rights for which either it is difficult to identify an aggrieved person or where aggrieved persons have no incentives to knock at the doors of the courts.

In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [13] , the Court ordered the closure of certain limestone quarries on the ground that there were serious deficiencies regarding safety and hazards in them. This matter was brought before the apex court by a PIL alleging that large scale pollution was caused by limestone quarries adversely affecting the safety and health of the people living in that area.

The Court had appointed a committee for the purpose of inspection of certain limestone quarries and the committee has suggested for the closure of certain categories of stone quarries having regard to the adverse impact of mining operations therein. So this strategy of PIL facilitated to bring to the notice of the apex court a very much important, needy and timely concerned problem as the protection of ecological balance is a burning issue.

This strategy of PIL facilitated in bringing to light the issues relating to environment protection, social justice, fundamental rights economic issues and also matters involving national importance like elections and powers of the Central Bureau of Investigation.

[1] State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196: (1952) SCR 597.

[2] Ambedkar, B. R., CAD Vol. VII, p. 953

[3] (1950) SCR 594

[4] (1950) SCR 594

[5] 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 229

[6] Special Leave Petition (C) No 29040 of 2018

[7] Vidya Verma v. Shivarain, (1956) S.C.A. 357

[8] Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1964 SC 72 page 83

[9] AIR 1975 Del 66

[10] (Black’s Law Dictionary, 320).

[11] AIR 1955 SC 233

[12] Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol. 11, page 114

[13] 1985 (2) SCC 431

• Constitutional Law
• Right to Privacy: Evolution

Aparna Ramamoorthy

Related news.

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Types Of Writs In India

Types of Writs - What are Writs? - Indian Polity Notes

What is writ.

Writs are a written order from the Supreme Court or High Court that commands constitutional remedies for Indian Citizens against the violation of their fundamental rights. Article 32 in the Indian Constitution deals with constitutional remedies that an Indian citizen can seek from the Supreme Court of India and High Court against the violation of his/her fundamental rights. The same article gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs for the enforcement of rights whereas the High Court has the same power under Article 226. The writs- Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition form an important topic for IAS Exam and its three stages- Prelims, Mains, and Interview.

Types of Writs in India – Indian Polity Notes Download PDF Here

This article will mention the types of writs that come under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts, forming an important part of IAS Mains GS-II and Political Science optional paper of the UPSC Exam .

Types of Writs in India

The Supreme Court of India is the defender of the fundamental rights of the citizens. For that, it has original and wide powers. It issues five kinds of writs for enforcing the fundamental rights of the citizens. The five types of writs are:

Habeas Corpus

Prohibition, quo-warranto.

Aspirants should go through these writs one-by-one as all of these are important for UPSC prelims and UPSC Mains and can help score well if understood with clarity.

The Latin meaning of the word ‘Habeas Corpus’ is ‘To have the body of.’ This writ is used to enforce the fundamental right of individual liberty against unlawful detention. Through Habeas Corpus , Supreme Court/High Court orders one person who has arrested another person to bring the body of the latter before the court.

Facts about Habeas Corpus in India:

• The Supreme Court or High Court can issue this writ against both private and public authorities.
• When detention is lawful
• When the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court
• Detention is by a competent court
• Detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court

The literal meaning of this writ is ‘We command.’ This writ is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty, to resume his work. Besides public officials, Mandamus can be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or government for the same purpose.

Facts about Mandamus in India:

• Unlike Habeas Corpus, Mandamus cannot be issued against a private individual
• To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force
• To order someone to work when the kind of work is discretionary and not mandatory
• To enforce a contractual obligation
• Mandamus can’t be issued against the Indian President or State Governors
• Against the Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity

For more on the writ of mandamus , click on the linked article.

The literal meaning of ‘Prohibition’ is ‘To forbid.’ A court that is higher in position issues a Prohibition writ against a court that is lower in position to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction that it does not possess. It directs inactivity.

Facts about Prohibition in India:

• Writ of Prohibition can only be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
• It can’t be issued against administrative authorities, legislative bodies and private individuals or bodies.

The literal meaning of the writ of ‘Certiorari’ is ‘To be certified’ or ‘To be informed.’ This writ is issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court or tribunal ordering them either to transfer a case pending with them to itself or quash their order in a case. It is issued on the grounds of an excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law. It not only prevents but also cures for the mistakes in the judiciary.

Facts about Certiorari in India:

• Pre-1991: The writ of Certiorari used to be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and not against administrative authorities
• Post-1991: The Supreme Court ruled that the certiorari can be issued even against administrative authorities affecting the rights of individuals
• It cannot be issued against legislative bodies and private individuals or bodies.

The literal meaning of the writ of ‘Quo-Warranto’ is ‘By what authority or warrant.’ Supreme Court or High Court issue this writ to prevent illegal usurpation of a public office by a person. Through this writ, the court enquires into the legality of a claim of a person to a public office

Facts about Quo-Warranto in India:

• Quo-Warranto can be issued only when the substantive public office of a permanent character created by a statute or by the Constitution is involved
• It can’t be issued against private or ministerial office

Note: This writ gives the right to seek redressal to any individual other than the aggrieved person.

General Facts about Writs in India:

• Article 32 also empowers Parliament to authorize any other court to issue these writs
• Before 1950, only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras had the power to issue the writs
• Article 226 empowers all the High Courts of India to issue the writs
• Writs of India are borrowed from English law where they are known as ‘Prerogative writs’

CSE exam aspirants must also know the difference between the Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court, as discussed below.

How Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Differs from that of the High Court?

Where Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs; Article 226 empowers the High Courts of India. However, there are a few differences between the writ jurisdiction of both the courts which are given in the table below:

The details of writs are important for UPSC 2024  as questions can appear in prelims related to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and more.

To know in detail about the IAS Syllabus , aspirants must check out the official notification and analyse the exam pattern and the subjects included in the written papers for the UPSC examination.

Also, refer to the previous year  IAS Topper list and get inspired and motivated from their success stories.

UPSC Questions related to Types of Writs

Which article in the indian constitution empowers parliament to authorize any court to issue writ.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. To read more on important articles in Indian Constitution , check the linked article.

Which writ is issued by a High Court or the Supreme Court to order an authority to perform a function that it was not performing?

Mandamus writ is issued by the court to compel an authority to resume its work.

Which writ is called the defender of fundamental rights?

Writ of Habeas Corpus is called the defender of fundamental rights.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

Top of page

Collection COVID-19 American History Project

Articles and essays.

• Pandemic Stories from New Orleans-Area Service and Hospitality Workers In 2023, Dr. Sara T. Bernstein, Dr. Elise Chatelain, and Zach Golden, of Dismantle Culture and Media Alliance, LLC, received funding to interview service and hospitality professionals who worked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in the New Orleans, LA-area. The researchers sought to understand how COVID-19 impacted the lives of hospitality workers and how the workers adapted to the changes created by…

Why Right to Constitutional Remedies is important

Introduction:

The citizens of India are guaranteed certain basic fundamental rights by the state, which cannot be taken away from them except in cases of procedure established by law. Such a guarantee is instrumental in reducing the arbitrariness of government legislation. In the absence of fundamental rights , the citizens may not be entitled to any basic human rights . Thus to prevent this, the constitution-makers incorporated Part III of the Indian Constitution enumerating a list of rights that is to assured by the state.

Importance of Right to Constitutional Remedies

Article 32 was incorporated in the Indian Constitution to assure that the citizens and individuals are not subject to unreasonable vitiation of fundamental rights. This article guarantees the right to constitutional remedies. Any individual, whose fundamental right has been violated by the state, has the right to approach the Supreme Court of India for enforcement of the said right. Dr Ambedkar, who was the chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution, rightly called this article as:

‘The very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it.’

The importance of Article 32 in the Indian constitution is immense. It is not just a constitutional right, but also a fundamental right. Without this, there would be no guarantee of other fundamental rights. Article 32 makes the fundamental rights written on paper an ensured reality. The Constitution of India would be meaningless without this provision.

List of Fundamental Rights to be guaranteed by the State:

None of the Fundamental Rights provided in the constitution can be held in isolation. To assure the rights of citizens, in reality, any fundamental right has to be read in association with Article 32. Some of the fundamental rights for the violation of which a citizen or an individual can approach the Supreme Court for remedies under Article 32 are broadly enlisted below.

• Laws passed by the parliament that is inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights [1]
• Equality before the law or equal protection of law by the State [2]
• Prohibition of Discrimination by the state based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them [3]
• Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (excluding reservation or appointment of posts in favour of any backward class of citizens) [4]
• Abolition of the practice of Untouchability in any form [5]
• Abolition of any title conferred by the state ( except military or academic distinction) [6]
• Right to Freedom of speech (subject to reasonable restrictions) [7]
• Protection of certain rights in respect of conviction for offences ( Ex post facto law, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination ) [8]
• Right to life and personal liberty (except in cases of procedure established by law) [9]
• Right to free education to all children between the age of six to fourteen [10]
• Protection of right against arrest and detention in certain cases [11]
• Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings, Begar (work without pay) and other similar forms of forced labour [12]
• Prohibition of employment of children below the age of fourteen in factory or mine or any other form of hazardous employment [13]
• Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practise, and propagation of religion (subject to public order, morality, and health) [14]
• Freedom to manage religious affairs, payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion and attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in individual educational institutions (subject to public order, health, and morality) [15]
• Prohibition Discrimination against minorities, including their right to establish and maintain educational institutions [16]

The Supreme Court has, over the years, actively increased and expanded the scope of fundamental rights. In case of any of the above instances and more where the state fails to guarantee fundamental rights, an aggrieved citizen can approach the Supreme Court of India for remedies. This is at the crux of the constitutional right to remedies.

Writs under article 32:

Article 32 also empowers the Supreme Court of India to issue Writs. Any citizen aggrieved by the state can file a writ petition.

Writ of Habeas Corpus: ‘Habeas Corpus’ translates literally to ‘to have a body’. This writ is issued by the Supreme Court when the personal liberty of an individual is vitiated, particularly in cases of illegal detention.

Writ of Mandamus : ‘Mandamus’ means ‘we command’. The writ of mandamus is used by higher courts to enforce their decisions on the lower courts. The Supreme court can invoke this writ in circumstances when the lower public authority has a duty, but it fails in doing so.

Writ of Quo Warranto : The literal meaning of ‘Quo Warranto’ is ‘by what warrants’. The Supreme Court can invoke the writ of quo warranto in cases where the activities carried out by a holder of public office exceeds their authority.

Writ of Certiorari : ‘Certiorari’ means ‘to certify’ or ‘to quash’. This writ of Certiorari can be invoked to quash a lower court or tribunals have passed the order of that. It can only be issued against judicial orders.

Writ of Prohibition : The writ of Prohibition is also known as ‘stay order’. This writ is invoked by the Supreme Court to get any lower court to stop acting beyond its jurisdiction.

Using these five Writ Petitions, an individual is entitled to approach the Supreme Court of India. The concept of Public Interest Litigation is also a unique feature introduced by the Indian judiciary to address concerns of fundamental rights violations.

Conclusion:

The importance of the Right to Constitutional Remedies is immense. Without this provision, the constitution would be rendered null and void. This right forms the basis of the entire legal system in India. Article 32 not only assigns meaning to the constitution but also lays down the detailed process to approach the Supreme Court. It is essential that such a remedy is available to the citizens to prevent the state from resorting to a totalitarian form. Having the Right to Remedies is crucial to uphold the ideals of democracy, freedom, equality, and liberty.

[1] Article 13, The Constitution of India

[2] Article 14, The Constitution of India

[3] Article 15, The Constitution of India

[4] Article 16, The Constitution of India

[5] Article 17, The Constitution of India

[6] Article 18, The Constitution of India

[7] Article 19, The Constitution of India

[8] Article 20, The Constitution of India

[9] Article 21, The Constitution of India

[10] Article 21(A), The Constitution of India

[11] Article 22, The Constitution of India

[12] Article 23, The Constitution of India

[13] Article 24, The Constitution of India

[14] Article 25, The Constitution of India

[15] Article 26, Article 27, The Constitution of India

[16] Article 29, Article 30, The Constitution of India

Try our Debt Resolution solutions today       Request a Demo

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• The Magazine
• City Journal
• Contributors
• Manhattan Institute
• Email Alerts

No, Religious-Freedom Laws Don’t Undermine Abortion Restrictions

An Indiana court’s ruling to the contrary would generate absurd results if allowed to stand.  

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned its mistaken rulings in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), affirming that American political communities are constitutionally permitted to regulate abortion. Soon after Dobbs , Indiana enacted Senate Enrolled Act No. 1 (what we call the “abortion law”), which prohibits abortion except when a pregnancy seriously endangers a mother’s health or life, a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the unborn child has a “lethal . . . anomaly.”

Several claimants challenged the abortion law as a violation of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They argued, in other words, that because the abortion law imposes a substantial burden on their religious exercise, rooted in the sincerely held religious belief that abortions are sometimes not only permissible but required, they are entitled to an exemption from the law. A number of legal commentators have advanced similar arguments. And in the spring of 2024, an Indiana appeals court agreed, for the most part, with the challengers’ claims. While acknowledging that the federal and state constitutions permit Indiana to regulate abortion, the court concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed with their claim that the state cannot justify enforcing the abortion law in cases where such enforcement burdens religious exercise.

The court of appeals was wrong, though, and Indiana’s supreme court should reject its reasoning (as we have argued in an amicus brief). Indiana, quite appropriately, protects the fundamental right to religious freedom. That right, however, does not entitle the claimants to an exemption from the state’s duly enacted and constitutionally permissible abortion law.

Under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act—modeled on the federal religious-liberty statute—a person who shows that government rule or action “substantially burden[s]” his “exercise of religion” is entitled to an exemption unless the government establishes that enforcement is the “least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling governmental interest.” The lower courts accepted, and we assume as well, that the abortion law could, in at least some cases, burden persons’ religious exercise. In the view of the Indiana challengers, and of the lower Indiana courts, that burden is unjustified under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Why? Because the existence of some exceptions in the abortion law (for example, in cases where continuing the pregnancy endangers a mother’s life) shows that applying it to religious claimants is not essential to advancing a compelling interest. In technical legal terms, so the argument goes, the application of the abortion law to the challengers fails “strict scrutiny.”

But, as we will explain, absurd results would follow from this argument. For starters, it should be clear that Indiana’s abortion law—and other states’ laws regulating abortion—advances a “compelling” government interest. As the Indiana Supreme Court put it in another case, “it is a traditional exercise of the States’ police powers to protect the health and safety of their citizens.” The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the same principle. Indeed, perhaps there is no higher compelling interest than saving a human life. And the Supreme Court made clear in Dobbs that states can determine that human physical life begins at conception, a determination that Indiana has made under its abortion law. It should be a straightforward matter of deductive reasoning that Indiana may thus assert a compelling interest in the protection of prenatal human lives.

Next, Indiana’s law clearly advances that compelling interest. It does what it is designed and permitted to do. After all, it prohibits nearly all abortions. True, it does not govern the disposition of embryos outside the womb or preclude abortions when the mother’s life or health is at risk or in case of rape, incest, or a lethal fetal anomaly. Still, “abortion” is otherwise prohibited “in all instances.” This prohibition covers nearly all abortions that would otherwise be performed, so it saves some human lives.

Enforcement of the abortion law, without exemptions for religious objectors, is “the least restrictive means” for promoting the government’s interest. The claimants do not contest this. The law prohibits only “abortion,” and it defines “abortion” as “the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.” Protecting each individual life is a compelling interest, and every abortion that Indiana prevents necessarily advances this interest. It is hard to imagine a tighter link between regulation and state interest. It is obvious that a less restrictive law—with even a single added exception—would advance the interest less.

Unsurprisingly, then, those seeking religious exemptions from the abortion law did not (as litigants usually do in “strict scrutiny” cases) identify any less burdensome alternative enforcement that would advance the state’s interest just as well. Nor did the challengers, or the lower courts, point to any application of the abortion law that does not advance that interest.

How could they? Any religion-based exemption would, by definition, undermine the government’s interest in saving prenatal human lives. The religious-freedom accommodation that the challengers seek is, necessarily and directly, in conflict with the government’s compelling interest. In another Indiana case, when a mother claimed a religious right to beat her child, the least restrictive method—and, indeed, the only method—for the state to vindicate its compelling interest in preventing child abuse was to deny the requested accommodation. The same is true in the abortion context. Since the interest in saving prenatal lives is compelling, the law advances it, and any less restrictive law would advance it less, Indiana’s law satisfies strict scrutiny.

Indiana’s court of appeals—like the commentators who have pressed religious-liberty arguments against the enforcement of abortion regulations—insisted that the law is not the least restrictive means just because it has a few closely drawn exceptions. But the question a court must ask under the “least restrictive means” analysis is whether the accommodation requested would undermine the state’s interest. And in this case, any accommodation would.

The cases cited by the Indiana appellate court only reinforce this contrast. In Holt v. Hobbs (2015), for example, an Arkansas prison forbade an inmate to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons. But the prison’s allowance of beards for health reasons suggested the state interest in ensuring prison security “could be achieved by narrower ordinances that burdened religion to a far lesser degree.” In that case, exemptions for secular conduct revealed that the state’s goal could be achieved in less restrictive ways. Sometimes the same point is proven not simply by a law’s exceptions, but by a state’s lighter regulations of some types of conduct compared with the desired religious conduct. That was the crux of Tandon v. Newsom (2021), where the Supreme Court expressed concern about the double standards at work in the regulation of social gatherings during the Covid-19 pandemic. The regulations’ under-inclusiveness mattered, and ultimately required an exemption for religious gatherings, only because it pointed to a less restrictive way of accomplishing the government’s goals. California’s allowance of larger secular gatherings—if they observed certain precautions—suggested a less restrictive approach to religious groups, namely letting them “gather in larger numbers while using [the same] precautions.”

The situation with abortion regulations is entirely different. Here, it is not a matter of assessing risks and designing precautions. Here, it is just a fact that any accommodation will undermine the government’s asserted—and, after Dobbs , constitutionally permissible—aim. Here, there is no way to protect a prenatal human life other than to prohibit a requested religious accommodation that, by its very design, would end that life. That the abortion law has some exceptions, unrelated to religious exercise, is irrelevant. Neither Holt nor Tandon —the rulings most heavily relied on by academics favoring the appeals court’s decision—provides support for the notion that abortion laws tend to flunk the “least restrictive means” inquiry.

Nor do the exceptions prove that Indiana’s interest in saving prenatal lives is not compelling. Each is easily explained as a way to prevent a weighty harm that a religious carve-out would not prevent. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stressed, even in cases applying “strict scrutiny,” it has “upheld laws . . . that could conceivably have restricted even greater amounts of [protected conduct] in service of their stated interests” when the state could adequately explain why the existing exceptions were not similarly situated to the requested accommodations.

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), for example, the Supreme Court rejected a free-speech challenge to a law that prohibited “training” and “expert advice or assistance” to terrorist groups, even though that law included exceptions for “independent advocacy” or provision of “religious materials” to those terrorist groups. The challengers in that case argued that these exemptions demonstrated a lack of even-handedness and were fatal to the law under “strict scrutiny.” The Court disagreed, and explained that “the Government, when seeking to prevent imminent harms . . . is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its empirical conclusions.” Further, the Court noted that the legislature was protecting other weighty concerns with these exceptions and that it should not replace the legislature’s “careful balancing” of “competing interests” with the Court’s own judgment.

In the same way, Indiana’s exceptions to the abortion law are not comparable with the requested religious accommodations: existing exceptions were meant to protect weighty interests that would not equally compel a religious exemption. For instance, protecting access to medically indicated procedures advances Indiana’s weighty interests in maternal life and health. Indiana could well have determined that pregnancies resulting from rape or incest implicate other serious policy concerns; that such pregnancies could bring acute psychological pain; that ending them might be excused, by analogy to the duress defense; or that juries might thus refuse to convict in such cases, and that limited enforcement resources are therefore better spent elsewhere.

The abortion law does not bar in vitro fertilization, but this fact does not compel a religious exemption. Indiana could easily have concluded that some aspects of IVF do less harm to its interest in protecting prenatal life or that regulating IVF would raise knotty enforcement questions best addressed separately. The state could conclude that, say, terminating the lives of embryos, and ending their development toward birth and maturity, is not the same as thawing frozen embryos that were never going to be implanted, and also that requiring the implantation of all embryos created during IVF would implicate constitutional rights against forced medical treatments and interventions.

The Indiana court did not engage these important considerations and distinctions. Instead, its basis for denying that the abortion law’s exceptions could be adequately explained was the mere fact that Indiana was willing to make them. This circular reasoning, if followed, would mean that no laws with exceptions can ever survive strict scrutiny. No doubt the existence of a secular exemption will certainly trigger strict scrutiny. But exemptions are not automatically fatal to strict scrutiny where they do not provide evidence that the government has less restrictive means of protecting the religious right (and accomplishing its compelling interest to boot). The existing exemptions provide no such evidence of less restrictive means. Even setting that argument aside, the exemptions are not comparable.

It is worth noting that the challengers’ argument (and the lower courts’ rulings) lead to absurd results. All laws, after all, need limits. For example, as Eugene Volokh has observed in another context, “even . . . bans on intentional homicide have exceptions—execution of a lawful sentence, killing in war, police killing of a dangerous fleeing felon, killing in self-defense or in defense of another, and disconnecting life-sustaining equipment at a patient’s request.” Criminals can also receive an insanity defense for an otherwise wrongful killing. A per se rule that secular exceptions require religious exemptions would mean that, for instance, religiously motivated killing—honor killing, stoning, exorcisms, child sacrifice—must be permitted because of these exceptions. Yet no court has ever held that religious accommodations are warranted from a homicide law.

Similarly, if the law let a doctor perform an osteotomy (that is, a procedure that requires the breaking of a bone to reshape or realign a bone), a per se rule triggering accommodations based on secular exemptions would mean that a parent could seek a religious accommodation to break a child’s bones for religious reasons. For that matter, the general common-law defense of “necessity” would trigger religious exemptions from all criminal laws. After all, that defense effectively gives each criminal law at least one exception; by the lower court’s logic, a religious exemption would then be required. That cannot be right—which is why no court, prior to this case, has ever said as much.

The right to religious freedom is a foundational human right. However, it does not guarantee, and never has required, exemptions for religious believers from any and all important regulations. Under the U.S. Constitution, legislatures are permitted to regulate abortion, to define human life as beginning at conception, and to assert and pursue their compelling interest in protecting such life. That such regulation might burden the sincere religious objections of some does not entitle them to damage that interest. Denying a religious exemption from the abortion law would satisfy strict scrutiny under Indiana law.

Stephanie H. Barclay is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Richard W. Garnett is the Paul J. Schierl Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Photo by Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).

Further Reading

Copyright © 2024 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

• Eye on the News
• From the Magazine
• Books and Culture
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

EIN #13-2912529

Here’s How Taylor Swift, Lizzo, And More Celebrities Reacted To The Presidential Debate

From Abbott Elementary star Sheryl Lee Ralph branding Trump “delusional” to Jimmy Kimmel and Flavor Flav poking fun at the entire thing, here’s what the celebs are saying.

BuzzFeed Staff

By now, you’ve definitely seen all the buzz around last night’s debate between Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris .

The debate took place live in Philadelphia and was broadcast across the nation, meaning that millions of people watched as several awkward and ridiculous moments unfolded throughout the night.

Lots of celebrities have since shared their thoughts, so here’s a breakdown of reactions.

1. kerry washington.

Kerry shared a photo of herself wearing a top that said “Madam President,” which she captioned, “Post #debate assessment #HarrisWalz2024.” Straight to the point.

Post #debate assessment #HarrisWalz2024 pic.twitter.com/WWZBOWdr7I — kerry washington (@kerrywashington) September 11, 2024

2. Stephen King

Author Stephen King kept things candid, tweeting, “Trump sounds barking mad.”

Trump sounds barking mad. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) September 11, 2024

Sharing a now-viral photo of Harris looking very confused at Trump’s comments, Lizzo wrote, “Same…”

View this photo on Instagram

4. Flavor Flav

Flavor Flav poked fun at Trump’s baseless claim that immigrants are eating pets , tweeting, “Pet Shop Boys better stay inside and lock the doors. You too Snoop Dogg. And Pitbull.”

Pet Shop Boys better stay inside and lock the doors. You too Snoop Dogg. And Pitbull. — FLAVOR FLAV (@FlavorFlav) September 11, 2024

5. Bette Midler

Actor Bette Midler — who has long criticized Trump — shared a string of tweets expressing her dismay at his statements . She ultimately wrote of Harris, “She won. Case closed. Bravo.”

She won. Case closed. Bravo. — bettemidler (@BetteMidler) September 11, 2024

6. Frankie Grande

Ariana Grande’s brother, Frankie, tweeted, “Kamala Harris just destroyed that ancient disgrace of a former president. She is EVERYTHING I’ve always dreamed a president could be. He is literally everyone’s worst nightmare. And he’s losing his mind… #Debate2024.”

Kamala Harris just destroyed that ancient disgrace of a former president. She is EVERYTHING I’ve always dreamed a president could be. He is literally everyone’s worst nightmare. And he’s losing his mind… #Debate2024 pic.twitter.com/WjEcXYUOY7 — Frankie James Grande (@FrankieJGrande) September 11, 2024

7. Dionne Warwick

Dionne appeared to shade Trump as she tweeted, “Doing all that yelling and lying.”

Doing all that yelling and lying. — Dionne Warwick (@dionnewarwick) September 11, 2024

8. Keke Palmer

Similarly, Keke kept things short and sweet, writing, “Chewed.”

Chewed. — Keke Palmer (@KekePalmer) September 11, 2024

9. Mark Ruffalo

Mark shared a longer post about his thoughts on the debate. He wrote, “Honestly, I was anxious about this debate but what is clear is that Kamala not only has a vision for the future and lifting America up but she is just so much even-tempered and so much smarter than Trump. She crushed him.”

Honestly, I was anxious about this debate but what is clear is that Kamala not only has a vision for the future and lifting America up but she is just so much even-tempered and so much smarter that Trump. She crushed him. #Debate2024 — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) September 11, 2024

10. Jimmy Kimmel

Jimmy Kimmel posted an Inside Out -inspired meme that represented Trump and Harris, quipping, “Anyone else watching on Disney Plus?”

11. mark hamill.

Star Wars actor Mark Hamill poked fun at some of Trump’s bizarre statements. He tweeted, “Him: We are a failing, 3rd-World nation! We're headed for WWIII! They're killing babies after they're born! Haitian migrants are eating your pets! Couldn't think of anything he'd do differently on Jan 6th!”

Him: We are a failing, 3rd-World nation! We're headed for WWIII! They're killing babies after they're born! Haitian migrants are eating your pets! Couldn't think of anything he'd do differently on Jan 6th! #AngryDefensiveandWeird 🤬🤪 Her: Presidential 🇺🇸 #WeAreNOTGoingBack — Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) September 11, 2024

12. Sheryl Lee Ralph

Abbott Elementary star Sheryl Lee Ralph shared many tweets criticizing Trump, one of which read, “This man is weak, stupid and delusional!!”

13. Rob Reiner

Actor Rob Reiner tweeted, “Tonight we saw the next President of the United States, and her name is Kamala Harris.”

Tonight we saw the next President of the United States, and her name is Kamala Harris. — Rob Reiner (@robreiner) September 11, 2024

14. Barack Obama

Former US President Barack Obama, who has continually voiced his support for Harris, posted, “Tonight, we saw firsthand who has the vision and strength to move this country forward instead of dividing us. @KamalaHarris will be a president for all Americans.”

Tonight, we saw firsthand who has the vision and strength to move this country forward instead of dividing us. @KamalaHarris will be a president for all Americans.  Let's get to work: https://t.co/EuAXRi0gI2 — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 11, 2024

15. Michelle Obama

Similarly, former First Lady Michelle Obama wrote: “After tonight’s debate there should be no doubt – no room for discussion – @KamalaHarris is the only candidate in this race who is ready to be President. I am once again urging everyone to roll up their sleeves and DO SOMETHING – phone bank, knock on doors, talk to any and everyone you know and urge them to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.”

16. Taylor Swift

Finally, in arguably the biggest celebrity reaction, Taylor endorsed Harris on Instagram after the debate. She wrote , “Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight. If you haven’t already, now is a great time to do your research on the issues at hand and the stances these candidates take on the topics that matter to you the most. [...] I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election.”

You can find more of our coverage around the 2024 election right here .

Topics in this article.

• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Taylor Swift

🗳 🇺🇲 Make your vote count! Learn more about how to register, important deadlines, and your state's mail-in voting options here . For more on the 2024 election, check out coverage on BuzzFeed , HuffPost , and NBC News .

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

The 49ers spoil Aaron Rodgers’ return with a 32-19 win over the Jets

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers (8) looks to pass the ball during the first half of an NFL football game against the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers, right, sits on the bench during the second half of an NFL football game against the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Jed Jacobsohn)

San Francisco 49ers running back Jordan Mason, left, runs against New York Jets safety Tony Adams (22) during the first half of an NFL football game in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)

San Francisco 49ers place-kicker Jake Moody (4) watches his field goal with Jake Tonges (88) and Mitch Wishnowsky (3) during the second half of an NFL football game against the New York Jets in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)

New York Jets wide receiver Allen Lazard (10) celebrates with wide receiver Garrett Wilson (5) after scoring against the San Francisco 49ers during the second half of an NFL football game in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Jed Jacobsohn)

San Francisco 49ers running back Jordan Mason, right, celebrates with offensive tackle Colton McKivitz, front left, after scoring against the New York Jets during the second half of an NFL football game in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Jed Jacobsohn)

San Francisco 49ers offensive tackle Trent Williams looks to block during the second half of an NFL football game against the New York Jets in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)

New York Jets head coach Robert Saleh, center, watches from the sideline during the second half of an NFL football game against the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara, Calif., Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Jed Jacobsohn)

• Copy Link copied

SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) — Fill-in back Jordan Mason took top billing in a game hyped as Aaron Rodgers’ return .

Mason ran for 147 yards and a touchdown in place of the injured Christian McCaffrey and the 49ers spoiled Rodgers’ comeback game with a 32-19 victory over the New York Jets on Monday night.

The former undrafted free agent overpowered New York’s highly acclaimed defense with his physical running style, helping the Niners score on eight straight drives.

“I thought he runs like he always does,” coach Kyle Shanahan said. “When you get him the ball, he breaks tackles, usually gets more than we block for. When we had the good lanes, he always hit them and got a bunch. But, JP was awesome today.”

Rodgers threw for 167 yards and one TD and also had an interception exactly 52 weeks to the day after his debut with New York ended with a torn Achilles after four snaps.

Rodgers had problems moving around in the pocket but still showed off the arm that helped him win four MVPs with the Green Bay Packers a few times in his first real action for the Jets.

“I can play better,” Rodgers said. “I missed a couple of throws. ... I felt overall I got the ball out pretty good but there were some opportunities I’d like to have back.”

Mason made the most of his opportunities in his first career start. He had just 83 carries his first two seasons but took advantage of being one of the few healthy backs for the Niners this summer to earn a larger role with McCaffrey’s sore calf and Achilles still bothering him.

His 28 carries were the most for any Niners player in a regular season game in 13 years as he showed he can handle a full-time load.

“I’m really excited for him,” quarterback Brock Purdy said. “He’s earned it. He’s the kind of guy where it’s not given to him. To see him go out and do what he did tonight, I’m so happy for him.”

Deebo Samuel added a 2-yard TD run and Jake Moody made a franchise record-tying six field goals to lead the 49ers to the win.

Purdy threw for 231 yards with no touchdowns or turnovers against a Jets defense that generated little pressure without holdout edge rusher Haason Reddick .

The Niners took control of the game around halftime. They got a field goal on a 12-play, 75-yard drive at the end of the first half and scored on Mason’s 5-yard run on an 11-play, 70-yarder to start the second half. That turned a 13-7 lead into a 23-7 advantage with the Jets getting only one kneel down snap during that stretch.

“That’s a championship outfit, and they introduced us to some championship football,” Jets coach Robert Saleh said.

Rodgers then threw an interception on the next drive on a pass to Garrett Wilson that was deflected by Deommodore Lenoir into the hands of linebacker Demetrius Flannigan-Fowles.

Rodgers threw his first TD pass in 610 days when he took advantage of a free play when Leonard Floyd jumped offsides to connect on a 36-yard scoring strike to Allen Lazard that cut the deficit to 26-13. Lazard caught a second TD in the closing seconds from Tyrod Taylor after the game had already been decided.

“We expect greatness when we step on the field,” Rodgers said. “There were moments, moments that felt pretty good but not sustained. I felt like if we could just get a first down we’d be rolling. But we had those three and outs which hurt us. I think a lot of stuff is correctable.”

Rodgers’ second game with the Jets lasted much longer than his first, which ended with a season-ending Achilles injury after just four snaps in 2023.

New York went three-and-out on the opening drive this game with two handoffs and a dropped pass by Lazard before a setback on the fourth snap that was temporary instead of season ending this time around. Rodgers’ first completion as a Jet was caught by Breece Hall, who had the ball punched out by Fred Warner for a lost fumble that set up a Niners field goal.

Rodgers got the Jets moving on the following drive, converting three third-down passes to Wilson to set up Hall’s 3-yard TD run. Rodgers went 6 for 7 for 61 yards on the drive.

New York didn’t get another first down in the half and trailed 16-7 at the break.

Jets: CB Michael Carter left with an ankle injury.

49ers: McCaffrey was inactive after being listed as questionable because of injuries to his calf and Achilles. ... LG Aaron Banks left in the third quarter with a calf injury.

Jets: Visit Tennessee on Sunday.

49ers: Visit Minnesota on Sunday.

AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl