Writ jurisdiction under Article 32
Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
What is Article 32?
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Constitutional Remedies, specifically providing the right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights. It is described as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
Scope of Article 32
Fundamental Right Enforcement: Individuals can approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated.
Judicial Remedies: The Supreme Court can issue writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto — to enforce these rights.
Original Jurisdiction: Article 32 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
Importance of Article 32
It is a guaranteed fundamental right.
Provides a quick and effective remedy for violation of fundamental rights.
It is a constitutional remedy, not dependent on legislative enactment.
Types of Writs under Article 32
Habeas Corpus: To release a person unlawfully detained.
Mandamus: To command a public authority to perform its duty.
Prohibition: To prevent a lower court or authority from exceeding jurisdiction.
Certiorari: To quash the order of a lower court or authority acting without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice.
Quo Warranto: To question the authority of a person holding a public office.
Key Case Laws on Article 32
1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
Landmark case concerning the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Holding:
The Court reaffirmed that Article 32 is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away.
Significance:
Strengthened Article 32 as a fundamental guarantee and cornerstone of constitutional democracy.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without following due procedure.
Holding:
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and emphasized the importance of procedural fairness. The Supreme Court upheld her right to approach the court under Article 32.
Significance:
Affirmed the wide scope of fundamental rights enforcement under Article 32.
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Facts:
Petition filed on behalf of undertrial prisoners detained without trial.
Holding:
The Court issued writs of Habeas Corpus, ordering speedy trials and release of prisoners.
Significance:
Demonstrated Article 32’s role in protecting personal liberty and ensuring justice for underprivileged.
4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged eviction orders affecting pavement dwellers.
Holding:
The Court held the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21 and accessible under Article 32.
Significance:
Expanded fundamental rights enforcement to socio-economic rights.
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Facts:
The case arose from sexual harassment of a social worker at the workplace.
Holding:
The Supreme Court, invoking Article 32, laid down guidelines against sexual harassment, in absence of legislation.
Significance:
Demonstrated proactive use of Article 32 writ jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights, even by creating guidelines.
6. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
Challenge to the validity of Aadhaar on the grounds of privacy violation.
Holding:
The Supreme Court declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 and upheld the petition under Article 32.
Significance:
Reinforced Article 32 as a powerful tool for protecting evolving fundamental rights.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding / Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keshavananda Bharati v. Kerala | 1973 | Constitutional amendments | Article 32 is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | Due process and personal liberty | Expanded fundamental rights scope under Article 32 |
| Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar | 1979 | Right to speedy trial | Writs for protection of personal liberty |
| Olga Tellis v. BMC | 1985 | Right to livelihood | Right to livelihood protected under Article 32 |
| Vishaka v. Rajasthan | 1997 | Workplace sexual harassment | Proactive use of Article 32 to create protective guidelines |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 2017 | Right to privacy | Recognized privacy as fundamental right enforceable under 32 |
Conclusion
Article 32 provides the most direct, effective remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
It ensures the Supreme Court acts as the guardian of fundamental rights.
The writ jurisdiction under Article 32 has been expansively interpreted to cover a wide range of rights and issues.
The Supreme Court has used Article 32 to actively protect citizens against violations by the State.
RELATED Blog
0 comments