Writ jurisdiction under Article 32
🔹 1. Introduction to Article 32
Article 32 of the Constitution of India provides the right to constitutional remedies, which empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is often called the "heart and soul" of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
🔹 Text of Article 32
Article 32 states:
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, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
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.
🔹 Nature and Scope of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32
Fundamental Right in itself: The right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right.
Only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court under Article 32 can be approached only when a Fundamental Right is violated, unlike Article 226 where legal rights can also be enforced.
Writs can be issued not only against the State but, in some cases, against private bodies if they perform public functions.
🔹 Types of Writs under Article 32
Habeas Corpus – “To have the body”; issued in cases of illegal detention.
Mandamus – “We command”; directs a public authority to perform a duty.
Prohibition – Issued to a lower court to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction.
Certiorari – Higher court quashes the order of a lower court/tribunal.
Quo Warranto – “By what authority”; challenges the legal right of a person holding public office.
🔹 Important Case Laws Under Article 32
✅ 1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 124
Facts: The petitioner, Romesh Thappar, challenged the ban on the entry and circulation of his journal "Cross Roads" in the State of Madras under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act.
Issue: Whether the ban violated Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), and whether Article 32 could be invoked.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, and its violation can be challenged directly under Article 32.
The ban was struck down as unconstitutional.
Importance:
First major case interpreting Article 32.
Established that the Supreme Court is the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights.
✅ 2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27
Facts: A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He filed a petition under Article 32 alleging violation of Articles 19 and 21.
Issue: Whether preventive detention without trial violated Fundamental Rights.
Judgment:
The court upheld the detention and adopted a narrow interpretation of Fundamental Rights, saying they are distinct and not interconnected.
Importance:
Though the writ under Article 32 was entertained, it limited the scope of Article 21.
This view was later overruled in Maneka Gandhi’s case.
✅ 3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her reasons. She filed a petition under Article 32 claiming violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Issue: Whether the procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable?
Judgment:
Supreme Court overruled A.K. Gopalan and held that Fundamental Rights are interconnected and must be read together.
Held that the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be fair and reasonable.
Importance:
Expanded the scope of Article 21 and Article 32.
Marked a liberal and activist approach of the judiciary in enforcing Fundamental Rights.
✅ 4. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts: Issue was regarding the independence of judiciary and appointment of judges. Petitions were filed by lawyers and journalists.
Issue: Whether a non-party can file a writ under Article 32 as Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
Judgment:
The Court allowed the petition and held that any member of the public having sufficient interest can approach the court under Article 32.
Recognized PIL as a legitimate tool to enforce Fundamental Rights of others.
Importance:
Opened the doors for PILs under Article 32.
Strengthened the role of judiciary as guardian of the Constitution.
✅ 5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Citation: AIR 1986 SC 180
Facts: Pavement dwellers in Bombay were being evicted. They challenged the eviction under Article 32, claiming it violated Article 21 (Right to Life).
Issue: Whether right to livelihood is included in Article 21?
Judgment:
Court held that right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Eviction without providing alternate accommodation violated their Fundamental Rights.
Importance:
Reinforced the scope of Article 21.
Used Article 32 to protect the economic and social rights of the poor.
✅ 6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011
Facts: A social worker was gangraped. There was no legislation at that time on sexual harassment at the workplace. A PIL was filed under Article 32.
Issue: Can the Supreme Court lay down guidelines in absence of legislation?
Judgment:
Laid down the Vishaka Guidelines for protection of women at workplaces.
Held that in the absence of law, international conventions (like CEDAW) can be enforced under Article 32.
Importance:
Set precedent for judicial legislation.
Highlighted the activist role of the Court under Article 32.
🔹 Conclusion
Article 32 is a powerful constitutional tool that empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. Through various landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of rights, established judicial activism, and evolved the concept of PIL. It ensures that no violation of Fundamental Rights goes unremedied, making it an essential pillar of Indian democracy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments