Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) — the right to move the Supreme Court and the five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.
Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
Right to Constitutional Remedies
Significance of Article 32
Fundamental Rights hold no value without an effective enforcement mechanism when they are violated.
Article 32 grants citizens the legal remedy to approach the Supreme Court for protecting these rights, making the protection itself a fundamental right.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the “soul” and “heart” of the Constitution, without which the Constitution would be meaningless.
The Supreme Court has recognised Article 32 as a basic feature of the Constitution, immune even from constitutional amendment.
Main Provisions under Article 32
(i) The guaranteed right to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcing fundamental rights.
(ii) The power of the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.
(iii) Authority of Parliament to empower other courts (excluding high courts) to issue such writs without limiting the powers of the Supreme Court.
(iv) The right to move the Supreme Court cannot be suspended, except during a national emergency as per Article 359.
Powers of the Supreme Court
The Court acts as the guardian and protector of fundamental rights.
Its jurisdiction is:
Original — citizens can approach it directly, not merely by appeal.
Wide — it can issue not just orders or directions but also all forms of writs.
Limitations and Scope
Only fundamental rights are enforceable under Article 32 — not statutory, customary, or other constitutional rights.
A violation of a fundamental right is essential for invoking Article 32.
The Supreme Court will not examine the constitutionality of a law or executive action unless it infringes a fundamental right.
Relationship with High Courts
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is original but not exclusive.
High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights.
A citizen may approach either the Supreme Court or a High Court when rights are violated.
While an alternate remedy via the high court is available, the Supreme Court has advised that parties should normally approach the high court first.
Writs — Types and Scope
Writ Jurisdiction under the Constitution
Under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts), writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto can be issued.
Parliament may authorise other courts to issue writs under Article 32, but so far this has not been enacted — hence only the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue them.
Before 1950, only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras had such powers. Article 226 extended this authority to all High Courts.
These writs originate from English law, historically called “prerogative writs” as they were issued under the King’s prerogative as the “fountain of justice”. Over time, British high courts used them to protect civil liberties.
Differences in Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Courts
(i) The Supreme Court may issue writs only to enforce fundamental rights, while High Courts can issue them for fundamental rights as well as ordinary legal rights (“for any other purpose”).
(ii) The Supreme Court can issue writs across the whole of India, whereas a High Court can act only within its territorial jurisdiction — or outside it if the cause of action arises within its area.
(iii) The remedy under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, so the Supreme Court generally cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction. Under Article 226, however, writ jurisdiction is discretionary for High Courts.
Types of Writs
Habeas Corpus
Latin for “to have the body of”. Issued by a court directing a detaining authority to produce a detained person and justify the detention.
If the detention is found illegal, the person must be released — making this writ a shield against arbitrary imprisonment.
Can be issued against public authorities or private individuals.
Not issued when:
(i) Detention is lawful
(ii) For contempt of court or legislature
(iii) By a competent court
(iv) Detention occurs outside the court’s jurisdiction
Mandamus
Latin for “we command”. A direction by the court to a public official to perform a duty neglected or refused.
Can be issued to public bodies, corporations, inferior courts, tribunals, or governments.
Not issued:
(i) Against private individuals or bodies
(ii) To enforce non-statutory instructions
(iii) Where duty is discretionary
(iv) To enforce contractual obligations
(v) Against the President of India or State Governors
(vi) Against a High Court Chief Justice in judicial capacity
Prohibition
Latin for “to forbid”. Issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal, preventing it from acting beyond its jurisdiction.
Mandamus commands action, while prohibition commands inaction.
Available only against judicial or quasi-judicial bodies; not against administrative authorities, legislatures, or private parties.
Certiorari
Latin for “to be informed”. Issued by a higher court to review a case from a lower court or tribunal, either transferring it or quashing its order.
Grounds include lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or legal error.
Prohibition is preventive; certiorari is both preventive and corrective.
Once limited to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, it can now (since 1991) be issued against administrative authorities affecting rights.
Not available against legislatures or private entities.
Quo Warranto
Latin for “by what authority”. Seeks to examine the legality of a person’s claim to hold a public office.
Prevents unlawful occupation of statutory or constitutional offices of a permanent nature.
Cannot be issued for ministerial or private posts.
Unlike other writs, any interested person can file for quo warranto, not just the aggrieved party.
