This article discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution which deals with the right to constitutional remedies. It summarizes:
1) Article 32 guarantees the fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
2) It gives the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders or writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcing fundamental rights.
3) Parliament can empower other courts to issue some of these writs within their jurisdiction.
4) This right cannot be suspended except as provided by the Constitution.
This article discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution which deals with the right to constitutional remedies. It summarizes:
1) Article 32 guarantees the fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
2) It gives the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders or writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcing fundamental rights.
3) Parliament can empower other courts to issue some of these writs within their jurisdiction.
4) This right cannot be suspended except as provided by the Constitution.
This article discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution which deals with the right to constitutional remedies. It summarizes:
1) Article 32 guarantees the fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
2) It gives the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders or writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcing fundamental rights.
3) Parliament can empower other courts to issue some of these writs within their jurisdiction.
4) This right cannot be suspended except as provided by the Constitution.
This article discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution which deals with the right to constitutional remedies. It summarizes:
1) Article 32 guarantees the fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
2) It gives the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders or writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcing fundamental rights.
3) Parliament can empower other courts to issue some of these writs within their jurisdiction.
4) This right cannot be suspended except as provided by the Constitution.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
ARTICLE 32
(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.
It is a Fundamental right Part of basic structure Under this we can directly approach SC Provides constitutional remedies for violation of Fundamental rights
Is Art 32 only for the purpose of issuing writs?
The ans is no. Clause (2) answers the question posed and lay down that SC can issue directions or orders or writs. Directions can be in any form. We have CPC or CrPC which act as support to the constitution. In case SC deals with a case that concerns other organ so it can only suggest or direct them and not a binding order. And these directions or orders are mentioned in CPC According to ambedkar Art 32 is the heart and soul of the Indian constitution "If I was asked to name the particular Article in this Constitution as the most important 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 …….. This in my judgment is one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual.“- Dr.Ambedkar John rawls worked in great detail on theory of justice. 2 principles are required to follow to ensure injustice:- Liberties of people must be compatible with liberties of others & difference principles. Without Art 32 the idea of Fundamental rights would be reduced to nullity. There has been relaxation in case of safeguards provided. New tools have been forged by the judiciary to protect the rights of the aggrieved. i) PIL ii) Epilostory jurisdiction - The term epistolary jurisdiction means acting on letter written by or on behalf of the oppressed people. This strategy is adopted by the supreme court for facilitating access to justice. Eg in Hussainara khatoon iii) continuing mandamus – Vineet Narain v. UOI Art 226 Res Judicata In simpler words, the thing has been judged by the court, the issue before a court has already been decided by another court and between the same parties. Hence, the court will dismiss the case as it has been decided by another court. Res judicata applies to both civil and criminal legal systems. No suit which has been directly or indirectly tried in a former suit can be tried again. Daryao v State of UP Petitioner 1st went under the Art.226 and losing on merits decided to go to the SC under 32, which the SC rejected and stated that Res judicata can bar the right of petitioner to bring a case before SC under Art.32 MSM Sharma v Shree Krishna Sinha – reiteration of the above principle
Ashok hurra v Rupa hurra- talked about origin of 5 writs we have today 1. Habeas corpus:- object is to secure the freedom of person who has been illegally detained. The court can ask the administrative body to produce the body. it is a matter of right and not a matter of course. This means that just by alleging that there has been violation of rights the writ will not be issued but only when you can proof the allegations then the writ is granted and a rule nisi is issued. Ex parte relief – in certain circumstances due to urgency a court if prima facie satisfied can grant or reject the writ of habeas corpus without both parties present. Ranjit singh v state of PEPSU AIR 1959 Rule nisi - a show cause notice to the authority asking for reasons why the concerned person is detained. In contemporary times we can see that this right has become more of a discretion of the courts and the SC have at times pick and choose cases on which this has been applied and on others it has not been. SC rules 2013 order 38 Habeas Corpus 3. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the person restrained stating that the petition is made at his instance and setting out the nature and circumstances of the restraint: Provided that where the person restrained is unable owing to the restraint to make the affidavit, the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit to the like effect made by some other person acquainted with the facts, which shall state the reason why the person restrained is unable to make the affidavit. The petition shall state whether the petitioner has moved the High Court concerned for similar relief and if so, with what result. 4. The petition shall be posted before the Court for preliminary hearing, and if the Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case for granting the petition is made out, rule nisi shall issue calling upon the person or persons against whom the order is sought, to appear on a day to be named therein to show cause why such order should not be made and at the same time to produce in Court the body of the person or persons alleged to be illegally or improperly detained then and there to be dealt with according to law. 5. On the return day of such rule or any day to which the hearing thereof may be adjourned, if no cause is shown or if cause is shown and disallowed, the Court shall pass an order that the person or persons improperly detained shall be set at liberty. If cause is shown and allowed, the rule shall be discharged. The order for release made by the Court, shall be a sufficient warrant to any gaoler, public official, or other person for the release of the person under restraint. 6. In disposing of any rule, the Court may in its discretion make such order for costs as it may consider just
